tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7950866495924235302024-03-13T10:10:09.088-07:00Divided LoyaltiesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-41800526258283072682009-02-07T00:00:00.000-08:002009-02-07T17:59:18.564-08:00America — what have you done?by <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332636/america-what-have-you-done.thtml">Melanie Phillips</a><br /><br />President Obama has had, by general consent, a torrid First Fortnight. To put it another way, it has taken precisely two weeks for the illusion that brought him to power to be exposed for the nonsense that it so obviously was. The transformational candidate who was going to sweep away pork-barrel politics, lobbyists and corruption has been up to his neck in sleaze, as eviscerated <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html">here</a> by Charles Krauthammer. Despite the fact that he came to power promising to “ban all earmarks,” his “stimulus” bill represents billions of dollars of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections — which have nothing to do with kick-starting the economy and everything to do with favouring pet Democrat causes.<br /><br />He has been appointing one tax dodger, lobbyist and wheeler-dealer after another. After appointing one official, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who had unaccountably forgotten to pay his taxes, he then watched his designated Health Secretary Tom Daschle fall on his sword because he too had taken a tax holiday. Daschle was furthermore a prominent actor in the world of lobbying and influence-peddling. Leon Panetta, Obama’s nominee for Director of the CIA has also, according to the <i><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123378062602049003.html#articleTabs%3Darticle">Wall Street Journal</a></i>, consulted for prominent companies and sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. The <i><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/101mswgc.asp">Weekly Standard</a></i> reports that Secretary of Labour nominee Hilda Solis was not only involved with a private organization lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she helped sponsor, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.<br /><br />In foreign policy, Obama has started by trashing his own country through grossly misrepresenting its history and grovelling to America’s enemies such as Iran, which has flicked him aside with undiluted contempt. He has gratuitously <a href="http://www.ptinews.com/pti\ptisite.nsf/0/64EDFEDC60EEEC0E652575510040AE56?OpenDocument">upset</a> America’s ally India by suggesting that America should muscle in and resolve the Kashmir question.<br /><br />His right hand doesn’t seem to know what his left hand is doing. He <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/obama-backs-out-iraq-appointment/">reportedly</a> asked retired Marine General Anthony Zinni to be US ambassador to Iraq, but then abruptly withdrew the appointment without explanation <i>after</i> it had been confirmed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And the precise role he is offering Dennis Ross — special envoy to Iran? Special adviser to Hillary? Special adviser to other special advisers? — remains mired in confusion.<br /><br />I have argued before however that, given Obama’s radical roots in the neo-Marxist, nihilist politics of Saul Alinsky, it is the undermining of America’s fundamental values that is likely to be this President’s most strategically important goal. I have also suggested that, since this agenda is promoted through stealth politics which gull the credulous middle-classes while destroying the ground upon which they are standing, his second-tier appointments should be closely scrutinised.<br /><br />And here’s a humdinger. Obama has picked a man called David Ogden to be deputy Attorney-General. Ogden has made his legal career from representing pornographers, trying to defeat child protection legislation and undermining family values. As <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/04/talk-stimulus-obamas-justice-nominee-used-represent-playboy/">FoxNews</a> reported this week, he once represented a group of library directors arguing against the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which ordered libraries and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene sites. And on behalf of several media groups, he successfully argued against a child pornography law that required publishers to verify and document the age of their models, which would have ensured these models were at least 18. <br /><br />The <a href="http://www.frcblog.com/2009/02/change_watch_backgrounder_davi.html">Family Research Council</a> has more examples of his contribution to upholding American and western values. In one such case, he expressed the view that abortion was less damaging to a woman than having children:<br /><br /><blockquote>In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects . . .</blockquote><br />In another, co-authored brief, he argued that it was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old girls seeking an abortion for their parents to be notified — because there was no difference between adults and mid-teens in their ability to grasp all the implications of such a decision:<br /><br /><blockquote>There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental. By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make. [E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14–18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14–15 years of age, and adults.</blockquote><br />And how did the 44th President react to the growing public dismay over the mess he was making? He threw his toys out of the pram — or perhaps that should read, he got <i>into</i> the pram. For he fled the scene of the disaster and sought the company of seven year-olds instead. As the <i><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4515462/Barack-Obama-fights-to-maintain-a-grip-on-the-US-political-agenda.html">Telegraph</a></i> reported:<br /><br /><blockquote>“We were just tired of being in the White House,” he told a group of excited seven-year-olds before discussing Batman and reading them a book.</blockquote><br />Tired of being President — after two weeks!<br /><br />Tax cheats, pork-barrel politics, ancillary child abuse, incompetence, chaos, treachery, and infantilism. America — what have you done?!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-56693703644764947442009-02-06T00:00:00.001-08:002009-02-07T18:13:59.471-08:00Mark Steyn: Obama mythology could use some stimulusby <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-hope-water-2301373-walk-didn">Mark Steyn</a><br /><br />Far from walking on water, president seems all at sea.<br /><br />In <i>The Washington Post</i>, E.J. Dionne tried to break it gently to us:<br /><br />“No occupant of the White House has ever been able to walk on water.”<br /><br />Yeah, sure, no <i>previous</i> occupant of the White House has been able to walk on water — your Eisenhowers and Roosevelts, your Chester Arthurs and Grover Clevelands and whatnot. But Barack didn’t run as just another of those squaresville losers. He was gonna heal the planet and lower the oceans. So, even if he couldn’t walk on water, he should at least be able to paddle in it. “He is a community organizer like Jesus was,” said Susan Sarandon, “and now we’re a community, and he can organize us.” <br /><br />So how’s that going? Jesus took a handful of loaves and two fish and fed 5,000 people. Barack wants to take a trillion pieces of pork and feed it to a handful of Democratic Party interest groups. Jesus picked twelve disciples. Barack seems to have gone more for one of those <i>Dirty Dozen</i> caper-movie lineups, where the mission is so perilous and so audacious that only the scuzziest lowlifes recruited from every waterfront dive have any chance of pulling it off. The ends justify the mean SOBs: “Indispensable Tim” Geithner, wanted in 12 jurisdictions for claiming his kid’s summer camp as a business expense, is the only guy with the savvy to crack the code of the U.S. economy. Tom “Home, James!” Daschle is the ruthless backseat driver who can figure out how to steer the rusting gurney of U.S. health care through the corridors of power. Charles Bronson is the hardbitten psycho ex-con who can’t go straight but knows how to turn around the Department of the Interior.<br /><br />And, of course, there’s the lovable dough-faced shnook in the front office, Robert “Fall Guy” Gibbs. He didn’t do nuthin’ wrong, but, when seven nominees die in a grisly shootout with a Taxable Benefit Swat Team in the alley behind the Senate, he makes the mistake of looking sweaty and shifty answering routine questions.<br /><br />A president doesn’t have to be able to walk on water. But he does have to choose the right crew for the ship, especially if he’s planning on spending most of his time at the captain’s table, schmoozing the celebrity guests with a lot of deep thoughts about “hope” and “change.” Far worse than his Cabinet picks was President Obama’s decision to make the “stimulus” racket the all but sole priority of his first month and then outsource the project to Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Harry Reid.<br /><br />Appearing on “The Rush Limbaugh Show” last week, I got a little muddled over two adjoining newspaper clippings — one on the stimulus, the other on those octuplets in California — and for a brief moment the two stories converged. Everyone’s hammering that mom — she’s divorced, unemployed, living in a small house with parents who have a million bucks’ worth of debt, and she’s already got six kids. So she has in vitro fertilization to have eight more. But isn’t that exactly what the Feds have done? Last fall, they gave birth to $850 billion of bailout they couldn’t afford and didn’t have enough time to keep an eye on, and now, four months later, they’re going to do it all over again, but this time they want trillionuplets. Barney and Nancy represent the in vitro fertilization of the federal budget. And it’s the taxpayers who’ll get stuck with the diapers.<br /><br />Those supporters who were wary of touting Obama as the walk-on-water Messiah did their best to lower expectations by hailing him merely as the new FDR. You remember the old FDR — “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Ha! With the new New Deal, we have <i>everything</i> to fear. As President Obama warned Tuesday, “A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe.” If you’re of those moonstruck Obammysoxers still driving around with the “HOPE, NOT FEAR” bumper stickers, please note that, due to an unfortunate proofreading error at the printing plant, certain nouns in that phrase may have become accidentally transposed.<br /><br />As it happens, the best way to ensure catastrophe is to “act now.” It would be nice if the world could all prance along in regimented unison like the Radio City Changettes. But, alas, the foreigners made the mistake of actually reading the “stimulus” bill, and the protectionist measures buried on page 739 subsection XII(d) ended, instantly, the Obama honeymoon overseas. The European Union has threatened a trade war. Up in Canada, provincial premiers called it “a march to insanity.” Wait a minute, I thought the Obama era was meant to be the retreat from insanity, a blessed return to multilateral transnational harmony.<br /><br />As longtime readers will know, I’m all in favor of flipping the bird to the global community. But at least, when Rummy was doing his shtick about “Old Europe,” he did it intentionally. To cheese off the foreigners entirely accidentally before you’ve even had your first black-tie banquet is quite an accomplishment. Protectionism is serious business to the Continentals. Oh, to be sure, if the swaggering unilateralist Yank cowboy invades some Third World basket-case they’ll seize on it as an opportunity for some cheap moral posturing. But in the end they don’t much care one way or the other. Plunging the planet into global depression, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.<br /><br />The bloated nonstimulus and the undertaxed nominees are part of the same story. I’m with Tom Daschle: I understand why he had no desire to toss another six-figure sum into the great sucking maw of the federal Treasury. Who knows better than a senator who’s voted for every tax increase to cross his desk that all this dough is entirely wasted? Tom and Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel and all the rest are right: They can do more good with the money than the United States government can. I only wish they followed the logic of their behavior and recognized that what works for them would also work for every other citizen. Instead, they insist that the sole solution to our woes is a record-setting wasteful government spending spree.<br /><br />Maybe it’s time for President Obama to come out and give one of his big hopey-changey speeches. It’s been a few weeks now, and I kinda miss them. You know — “We are the change we’ve been waiting for.” “We have nothing to hope for but hope itself.” “Ask not what your hope can change for you, ask what you can hope for your change.” Etc.<br /><br />But I wonder if the old songs from last month’s hit parade would play as well today. On Wednesday, Salon headlined a story on Obama: “The New Great Communicator . . . Isn’t.” Oh, dear. It’s early days yet, but the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality, between the audacity of hope and the reality of pork, yawns ever wider. Right now, it’s the Obama mythology that urgently needs some stimulus. Some of us never expected him to walk on water. But we didn’t think he’d be all at sea taking on quite so much of it after a mere two weeks.<br />©MARK STEYNUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-67376358370143362882009-02-06T00:00:00.000-08:002009-02-07T18:04:16.091-08:00The Fierce Urgency of Porkby <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html">Charles Krauthammer</a><br /><br /><blockquote><i>“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe.”</i> — President Obama, Feb. 4</blockquote><br />Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared “we have chosen hope over fear.” Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.<br /><br />And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn’t understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.<br /><br />The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn’t what’s illegal, but what’s legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.<br /><br />He’d been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he’s not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don’t get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.<br /><br />At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal’s private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he’d come to Washington to upend.<br /><br />And yet more damaging to Obama’s image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama’s name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.<br /><br />It’s not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It’s not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the <i>Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</i>, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.<br /><br />It’s the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus — and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress’s own budget office says won’t be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.<br /><br />Not just to abolish but to create something new — a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the “fierce urgency of now” includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance.<br /><br />The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting “planted” for “ready to market” would mean a windfall garnered from a new “bonus depreciation” incentive.<br /><br />After Obama’s miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell — and that this president told better than anyone.<br /><br />I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.<br /><a href="mailto:letters@charleskrauthammer.com">letters@charleskrauthammer.com</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-23835247239394671532009-01-30T00:00:00.000-08:002009-02-08T10:57:46.885-08:00Obama Just Flatters Himselfby <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/01/30/obama_just_flatters_himself?page=full&comments=true">Charles Krauthammer</a><br /><br />WASHINGTON — Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims with “to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic. <br /><br />Is it “new” to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn’t just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to “restore” the “same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.” <br /><br />Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years — the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world — America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved — and resulted in — the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. <br /><br />The two Balkan interventions — as well as the failed 1992–93 Somali intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) — were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on earth. Why are we apologizing? <br /><br />And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed “as recently as 20 or 30 years ago” that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran’s radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage. <br /><br />Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his charge d’affaires. <br /><br />This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations. <br /><br />Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, “I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country” — implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations — that’s fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized. <br /><br />As in Obama’s grand admonition: “We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.” Have “we” been doing that, smearing Islam because of a small minority? George Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington six days after 9/11, when the fires of Ground Zero were still smoldering, to declare “Islam is peace,” to extend fellowship and friendship to Muslims, to insist that Americans treat them with respect and generosity of spirit. <br /><br />And America listened. In these seven years since 9/11 — seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of <i>cartoons</i> — there’s not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the greatest massacre in U.S. history. On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage. <br /><br />“My job,” says Obama, “is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.” That’s his job? Do the American people think otherwise? Does he think he is bravely breaking new ground? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and countless other leaders offered myriad expressions of that same universalist sentiment. <br /><br />Every president has the right to portray himself as ushering in a new era of this or that. Obama wants to pursue new ties with Muslim nations, drawing on his own identity and associations. Good. But when his self-inflation as redeemer of U.S.-Muslim relations leads him to suggest that pre-Obama America was disrespectful or insensitive or uncaring of Muslims, he is engaging not just in fiction but in gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead. <br /><br />Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-10315912811391880422008-12-09T00:00:00.000-08:002008-12-12T17:33:59.183-08:00Obama and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause<a target="_blank"href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/obama_derangement_syndrome.html">Obama and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause</a><br /><i>by</i> Randall Hoven<br /><br />On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the <i>Donofrio</i> case concerning whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore qualified to be President. Also, David Horowitz diagnosed those who claim Obama is not natural born as being afflicted with <a target="_blank"href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=">“Obama Derangement Syndrome”</a>; Horowitz told people to “shut up about the birth certificate.” A bad day for those of us in tinfoil hats. Even <a target="_blank"href="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/05/truthers-to-the-left-of-me-truthers-to-the-right/">Michelle Malkin</a> is against us.<br /><br />Mr. Horowitz whizzes right by the issue of whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified. He simply says it doesn’t matter. He asked, “What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil?”<br /><br />When the US Constitution is clear on a matter, we are not supposed to rethink “what difference does it make to the future of this country.” If we do this rethinking at every step, we would not need a Constitution; we would merely cogitate on how proposal X will affect our future. In short, no need for a Constitution.<br /><br />In this case, the Constitution is very clear. Article II, Section 1 states, “no person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” No fuzz there. No need to look into penumbras and emanations. If a guy ain’t natural born, he can’t be President.<br /><br />But, the election already happened. Too late, right? That’s Horowitz’s contention: “How viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?”<br /><br />Again, the Constitution is clear on this in the 20th Amendment:<br /><br /><blockquote>“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or <i>if the President elect shall have failed to qualify,</i> then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. . .” (emphasis mine)</blockquote><br />The US Constitution tells us exactly what to do in the current situation. The election is not some kind of deadline. Even the true election by Electors is not the deadline. The deadline is “the time fixed for the beginning of his term.” That would be January 20, 2009. We have not yet reached the Constitutional deadline. The Constitution even hints that there is, or should be, some kind of qualification process: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify.” (By the way, that part of the Constitution was not written by dead white guys some 200 years ago; the 20th Amendment was ratified in 1933.)<br /><br />If we find that Obama is not natural born, then the Constitution says Joe Biden shall be President until the President thing gets sorted out. Everything about that is horrible. Unfortunately, it is exactly what the Constitution says we <i>shall</i> do. It does not “suggest”; it says “shall.”<br /><br />Are we to apply the Constitution only in cases where it is convenient to do so?<br /><br />Those of us concerned about this, at least some of us, are not driven by keeping Obama out of office. Look, we’re talking President Biden. We’re talking disqualifying the first African-American to be elected President. We are talking Constitutional, existential crisis. Riots in the street, even civil war, maybe. This is a very bad situation.<br /><br />But for all I know, there is a simple way to get past this. Perhaps some kind of retroactive redefinition of “natural born” that would handle Obama’s particular technicality. I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer. I’m actually hoping someone knows a clean way out of this.<br /><br />For all I know, the facts of this case could turn out to be wonderful: Barack Obama is indeed natural born and we all live happily ever after. But the facts are key here. If he is not natural born, we should not ignore that fact.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the facts are not clear. Multiple witnesses say Obama was born outside the US, that his father was not a US citizen and his mother was a minor. If those are the facts, he was not “natural born” per the laws in place at the time. Other cases have advanced different arguments challenging Obama’s eligibility under the natural born citizen clause.<br /><br />As much as we wish the bad thing to go away, the “evidence” brought forth to prove Obama’s natural born status is next to nonexistent, despite what you might have read or heard. Yes, there was a birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper at the time. Yes, the state of Hawaii said his birth certificate has been verified. Yes, we’ve seen Obama’s birth certificate and it says he was born in Honolulu.<br /><br />Each of these claims falls apart upon the slightest examination. For those of you tired of the subject, skip to my Conclusion. For anyone curious about the evidence presented to prove Obama’s natural born status, read on.<br /><br /><b>The Birth Announcement</b><br />A birth announcement in a newspaper means nothing. Although Michelle Malkin waxed a little snarky on this, “Did a fortuneteller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?” it is fairly common to run such announcements for babies born outside the area of the announcement or even the US. Proud grandparents, for example, could have run the announcement just to let people know they are now grandparents.<br /><br />The <a target="_blank"href="http://wikileaks.org/leak/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser.pdf">announcement</a> is not exactly informative. It says “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy, son. Aug 4.” That’s it. It ran on page B-6 of the August 13, 1961, edition of <i>The Sunday Advertiser</i>. It is not an official document of any kind and makes no claim of the location of his birth in any case. It announces a birth, period.<br /><br /><b>The “Verification”</b><br />Here is how the story was reported by <a target="_blank"href="http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news">KITV</a>: “The state’s Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate.”<br /><br />That looks pretty black and white — at first glance. And that is how it normally gets reported. But read it again and then the whole article. The above statement simply says the birth certificate is legitimate. The actual quote from the Department of Health director is<br /><br />“I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, 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 Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”<br /><br />All they did was verify that Obama’s original birth certificate is on record. But that doesn’t tell us what we need to know. What we need to know is <i>where he was born.</i><br /><br />Surprisingly, Hawaii happens to issue birth certificates for babies born outside Hawaii. The <a target="_blank"href="http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm">Hawaiian law</a> on that states:<br /><br /><blockquote><b>Certificates for children born out of State.</b> (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.</blockquote><br />The state of Hawaii did not say what was on the certificate and it won’t release a copy out of privacy considerations. The state of Hawaii simply verified that Obama has a birth certificate on record; it did not verify that he was born in Hawaii.<br /><br /><b>The released birth certificate</b><br />It is often claimed that Obama has already released his birth certificate. What we have is an online copy via the website <a target="_blank"href="http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate">FightTheSmears.com</a>. There are several significant questions about this certificate.<br /><ul><li>Did this really come from Obama? Is FightTheSmears an official conduit of information from Obama?</li><br /><li>How genuine is the document? Is it a Photoshopped or Microsoft Word fake, ala Dan Rather’s memo? (I am not a forensic documentarian, so I will remain silent here. <a target="_blank"href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp">Snopes</a> says it isn’t a forgery.)</li><br /><li>The document itself says, <B>“ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE”</B> (emphasis original), and it has been altered by, at least, a redacted certificate number.</li><br /><li>Most importantly, rendering the previous points moot, this is not Obama’s original birth certificate (the “long form”) and thus does not tell us what we need to know. Even if totally genuine, <i>it is not the document necessary to prove he was born in Hawaii.</i></li></ul>As <a target="_blank"href="http://undividedloyalty.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-barack-obama-birth-certificate.html">Joe the Farmer</a> reported in the <a target="_blank"href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html">American Thinker</a>, “Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its website: <br /><br /><blockquote>In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original <i>Certificate</i> of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the <i>Certification</i> of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original <i>Certificate</i> of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated <i>Certification</i> requires additional verification by DHHL.”</blockquote><br />The essence of the complaint is that the “Certification of Live Birth” that is used by FightTheSmears, the <a target="_blank"href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html">Annenberg Political FactCheck</a> and others does not have the same information as an original birth certificate, <i>including location of birth.</i><br /><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br />The irony is that this would not take a protracted trial with tons of evidence and counter-evidence, examination and cross-examination, expert testimony from forensic anthropologists, or satellite imagery. All it should take is for Obama to authorize the release his original birth certificate, the “long form,” the one the state of Hawaii says it has on record.<br /><br />That’s it; release the real certificate. If the “long form” birth certificate says Obama was born in the US, I think we are done.<br /><br />Hurray! <br /><br />But <i>even if</i> it doesn’t, we are not in Constitutional crisis or civil war just yet. Real lawyers could review the law and determine that Obama’s birth circumstances still meet the “natural born” criteria. Let’s get this issue out of the newspapers and the blogs and into a courtroom. A <i>courtroom,</i> you know, where facts and the law are dealt with in this country.<br /><br />But if that doesn’t end it, we are <i>still</i> not in a crisis. Legislators could come up with some kind of retro-active legislation. I hear it’s been done before. Again, I’m not a lawyer, but it doesn’t seem hopeless.<br /><br />Only if all of the above fail prior to January 20, 2009, would we be required to follow the constitutional remedy of installing President Biden.<br /><br />I think this series of actions is what lawyers call due process and due diligence. That, in my mind, is what we should be doing rather than ignoring the entire matter because it is so unpleasant. We should also not be rope-a-doping the legal situation just to push the issue past January 20, 2009. Simply address the issue in a straightforward legal and Constitutional manner. That’s all I ask.<br /><br />But please, do not tell us to deny the facts, ignore the Constitution and “shut up.” George Orwell reminded us that “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.”<br /><br />Two plus two makes four. And the US President must be natural born.<br /><br /><i>Randall Hoven can be contacted at <a href="mailto:randall.hoven@gmail.com">randall.hoven@gmail.com</a> or via his website, <a target="_blank"href="http://kulak.worldbreak.com/">kulak.worldbreak.com</a>.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-478152075775173072008-12-08T00:00:00.002-08:002008-12-12T17:33:27.951-08:00The Usurper’s New Clothes<a target="_blank"href="http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6799">The Usurper’s New Clothes</a><br /><i>by</i> Jayme Evans<br /><br />Intro: Facts are so inconvenient to those brimming with intellectual dishonesty.<br /><br /><blockquote><i>“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”</i> — Barry Goldwater</blockquote><br />A favorite tactic of Communists, liberals, and others on the left is using peer-pressure-laced name-calling to try and marginalize those with whom they disagree. If they can successfully convince enough people that a particular viewpoint is held only by those on the fringes, as opposed to the mainstream, they believe they can successfully discredit that person as a crackpot.<br /><br />They frequently brandish the labels Hitler, racist and extreme right-wing in their pathetic attempts to banish conservatives who believe in strict constitutional interpretations to the extremities of the political spectrum. But, no matter how many people in this country — or elsewhere — attack my efforts to protect and defend my Constitution, unless and until President-Elect Obama produces his original vault birth certificate for public scrutiny, he will be little more than a usurper; an illegitimate and impotent poseur. And no amount of name-calling, taunts, or questions of sanity, patriotism or intelligence will change that fact. Those tactics only work on the weak-minded and those without the courage of their convictions.<br /><br />As Americans, we pledge our loyalty to our nation and its founding principles, not to the politicians who’ve destroyed it by abandoning those principles and certainly not to our bloated, collapsing behemoth of a bureaucracy. What I and thousands of other Americans are asking for is not irrational. It is not extreme. It is not a burden. It is a non-negotiable requirement of our Constitution and a prerequisite of any constitutionally elected president.<br /><br />This is not some cuckoo effort that I am engaged in alone. There are over 150,000 petition signatures and over 60,000 individual letters addressed to the Supreme Court asking for Obama to disclose his vault birth certificate for examination, yet those who attack have done so while lacking complete factual honesty:<br /><br />“Sorry, but you’re a sick person. It really bothers you that someone without your skin color could be president. Why didn’t you raise these same issues about John McCain, who was born in Panama? You really need to get control of yourself; get some professional help, quickly.”<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"># # #<br /></div><br />“There may or may not be points worth considering in this article but either: a) they are so buried in extremist statements that you have to work really, really hard to dig them out, or b) this article is designed to appeal only to the “lunatic fringe.” In either case, it is a waste of time.”<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"># # #<br /></div><br />“The person referenced should study history. I believe Canada is a fine country and would be very careful about being critical of its leaders. Evans sounds like he should be on FOX.”<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"># # #<br /><br /></div>The only context in which I have ever mentioned Obama’s skin color is in the context that he would be the nation’s first back president or to repeat those slurs uttered by other Democrats. The same issues <i>have</i> been raised about John McCain and he was declared by the US Senate to be a natural born US citizen. As for the last comment, although I am American and was criticizing an American politician, I’ll take it as a compliment.<br /><br />Notwithstanding that one of the many cases against Obama was scheduled for conference on December 5th, mum’s the word in the mainstream media. Not one single syllable. Most who have covered any news of this controversy have given these lawsuits slim chances of succeeding, despite the simplicity of the legal remedy. And all have done so with an ounce of ridicule, such as in <i>Slate Magazine</i>’s <a target="_blank"href="http://www.slate.com/id/2206033">“Change They Can Litigate.”</a> In this patronizing attempt to discredit those suing, the author condescendingly refers to “proof of citizenship” (quotes his), lawsuits brought by a professional poker player (as if that matters), sit-ins (a right of all Americans championed by the left) and other attempts to marginalize the plaintiffs and their supporters by making them out as fringe kooks.<br /><br />Joseph Farah’s <a target="_blank"href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/">WorldNetDaily</a> is not a “fringe” site, but one of the fastest growing sites on the Internet with millions of viewers. One of the suits was brought by Phillip Berg, registered Democrat who also sued Bush over 9/11. Another was filed by Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate. Obama’s citizenship is only a tangential issue and no one is trying to overturn anything. All we want is proof he was born on US soil. Overturned elections are not a good thing for this country, but quite necessary in order to preserve the integrity of our constitution if Obama is indeed the usurper many believe he is.<br /><br />Facts are so inconvenient to those brimming with intellectual dishonesty.<br /><br />It’s rather amusing how those who believe in such drivel as alien abductions, anthropogenic global warming, the Second Gunman or 9/11 conspiracy nonsense involving Bush/Cheney and 4,000 Jews are so quick to condemn this effort as a few loonies with an ax to grind.<br /><br />The story of Barack Obama’s quest for the presidency nicely parallels the Hans Christian Anderson classic <i>The Emperor’s New Clothes</i>. But in this modern-day version, the young boy who alerts the Emperor to his own nudity is permanently silenced by being dragged off and having his throat slit.<br /><br />Never forget those who served, fought, and died during the battle of Pearl Harbor.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-41168582283659217622008-12-08T00:00:00.001-08:002008-12-12T17:32:47.776-08:00IN THE SHADOW OF NEMESIS<a target="_blank"href="http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm">In the Shadow of Nemesis</a><br /><i>by</i> Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.<br /><br />As this commentary is being written, the latest runaround in the judicial flimflam of “who lacks ‘standing’ to demand production of Barack Obama’s <i>original</i> Hawaiian birth certificate (if one actually exists)” has just taken place. According to a newspaper report, Hawaiian Judge Bert Ayabe has dismissed a suit filed by one Andy Martin, on the ground that Martin “does not have a direct and tangible interest in the vital statistic records being sought, namely the birth certificate of President Obama.”<br /><br />Perhaps one may gauge the circumspection and even-handedness with which Ayabe approached the case by recalling that Barack Obama is not yet “the President of the United States,” only the ostensible “President elect” once removed (because he has been purportedly “elected” only by the voters, but not yet by the Electoral College as certified by the President of the Senate under the Twelfth Amendment). And the underlying issue in Martin’s suit is whether Obama is even constitutionally eligible to hold the Office of President. So Ayabe’s decision exhibits a rather strong undercurrent of question-begging and special pleading.<br /><br />In a like vein, Ayabe ruled that Martin was not among the set of individuals to whom Hawaiian law grants a right to inspect birth certificates. Of course, the more important inquiry is whether the restraints <i>Hawaiian</i> law imposes <i>generally</i> on public inspection of the State’s records must yield to an implied cause of action <i>under the Constitution of the United States</i> for any American citizen to establish whether or not <i>Barack Obama in particular</i> is even “eligible to the Office of President” now that his status as a “natural born Citizen” has been (and is being repeatedly) challenged. [See Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and Article VI, Clause 2]<br /><br />Worse yet, Ayabe scored Martin for failing to prove that “irreparable harm will occur if the records are not provided.” Perhaps neither Martin nor Ayabe has read my previous article, “Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down,” which outlines only some of the more obvious “irreparable harm” that must ensue if an usurper seizes control of the Presidency. But one would hope that a “judge” might have some independent familiarity with the Constitution sufficient to lead him on his own to the correct conclusion. For, as that article shows, substantial “irreparable harm” from such usurpation can be established beyond peradventure simply by reading the Constitution.<br /><br />Not satisfied with this blunder, Ayabe ruled that Martin had provided “insufficient evidence to indicate that the public interest supports” disclosure of the supposed birth certificate. “There is a reasonable belief that the public would rather preserve confidentiality of vital health records,” Ayabe held. Although that “belief” might be arguably “reasonable” <i>in the general case</i> (yet not very persuasive even there), it is patently, even childishly, ridiculous in this particular case, where only the complete disclosure of the record (if such record exists) can answer the question of Obama’s eligibility, on which America’s future political stability may rise or fall. <i>Can there be any public interest whatsoever in the “confidentiality of [a single] vital health record” relating to a single individual when such continued “confidentiality” plausibly threatens this whole country’s well being?!</i><br /><br />So much for Martin’s lawsuit. It would be laughable if its result did not hammer another twisted judicial nail into America’s coffin. Martin’s suit, moreover, is not the last of its type that will be dismissed on purported “standing” grounds, because the judge-contrived rules of “standing” applicable to this situation are sufficiently illogical, non-scientific, and even anti-intellectual — that is, contrived from question-begging and ultimately undefinable, unverifiable, and unfalsifiable legalistic mumbo jumbo — that they can rationalize whatever result judges desire to reach, howsoever illogical, perverse, and even dangerous to the national interest it may be. And, particularly in this situation, judges will desperately desire to escape having to take upon themselves the responsibility for the political consequences — let alone the odium whipped up by Obama’s touts in the big media — that will flow from the courts’ declaring Obama ineligible for the Office of President. Which responsibility and vilification wily judges can craftily evade by denying that voters, electors, candidates, and various other would-be litigants have “standing” to challenge his eligibility. For then the judges can claim both that, on the one hand, they have no authority to declare Obama ineligible because no litigant has “standing” to demand such relief, and that, on the other hand, by dismissing the cases solely on “standing” grounds they have not declared him eligible, either. Perhaps when each judge publishes these rulings, the statue of Justice holding the sword and scales should be replaced in his courtroom with one of Pontius Pilate washing his hands.<br /><br />Although this poltroonish judicial strategy has succeeded in some areas in the past, it will prove bootless, as well as myopic, in this case. The next steps in the process of selecting a President are: (i) for the Electoral College to vote, and then (ii) for Congress to count those votes. The Twelfth Amendment provides (in pertinent part) as follows:<br /><br /><blockquote>The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President * * * ; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President * * * and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, * * * and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed * * * to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. * * *</blockquote><br />The Amendment specifies no grounds, procedure, or standards on or by which any elector’s vote may be challenged for any cause, by either the Electors or Members of Congress. But Congress has enacted a statute that partially addresses this matter:<br /><br /><blockquote>Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States * * * ; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted * * *, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. <i>Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified * * * from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. * * *</i> [Title 3, United States Code, Section 15 (emphasis added)]</blockquote><br />Even if this legislation is itself a constitutional implementation of the Twelfth Amendment under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), it does not purport to provide for, let alone guarantee, a correct result:<br /><br />First, without an objection “signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives” no inquiry at all can go forward. Yet the mere absence of an objection — particularly without any explanation — cannot preclude the possibility that an Elector’s vote ought to be the subject of an objection and may prove on examination to be objectionable. Indeed, in these times, the very absence of an objection may indicate only that “the good old boys” in Congress — Democrats certainly, and Republicans most likely, too — have “cut a deal” among themselves behind the scenes in order to suppress an investigation the inevitable and unavoidable results of which would demonstrate the utter bankruptcy, if not criminality, of the present electoral process — in that an individual possibly not “eligible to the Office of President” and his handlers may have managed to bamboozle, bribe, blackmail, or otherwise subvert, suborn, or silence both of the “two” major political parties, the big media, the pundits, and every public official with civil or criminal jurisdiction over elections throughout both the General Government and the States.<br /><br />Second, although a correct result requires a <i>complete</i> inquiry into an objection, with appropriate findings of fact and law supported by competent evidence, the statute merely requires “a decision” each from the Senate and the House of Representatives. On what basis and with what formality and content these “decision[s]” are to be made the statute does not specify. For instance, are the Senate and the House to hold hearings, to and at which witnesses will be subpoenaed and documents will be required to be produced for inspection and analysis? What rules of evidence will apply at these hearings? Who will have the ultimate burden of proof? What will be the standard of proof — a preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? The queries are legion, the answers unknown.<br /><br />Yet the Constitution demands that, if such an inquiry is held, it should arrive at the correct conclusion with sufficient evidence in support. After all, the question of Obama’s eligibility <i>vel non</i> is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or to decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient. Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be “a natural born Citizen,” by simply assuming that he is such, or by accepting something other than what lawyers call “the best evidence” (in this case, his supposed original Hawaiian birth certificate, as opposed to some purported “certification of live birth” computer-generated only decades later). <br /><br />Therefore, if no objection at all is made to any Elector’s vote for Obama — or if no objection to an Elector’s vote on the specific basis that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” (and therefore the Elector cannot constitutionally vote for him) is allowed — or if such an objection is allowed, but no searching and complete inquiry, or no inquiry at all, is had — or if partisan Senators and Representatives jury rig “decision[s]” that whitewash Obama on the facts or the law — or some other gross irregularities appear in the process — then thereafter the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a constitutional sufficiency. Congress simply cannot “waive,” or simply flub, the Constitution’s eligibility requirement “to the Office of President” by inaction, or incompetent action, or collusive action<br /><br />In sum, if the statute does not guarantee (within human competence) that a correct answer to the question be had, then it cannot be deemed to be the exclusive remedy in the premises if (as will be discussed below) a better remedy is available. Moreover, even if the statute is employed to hear and decide challenges to Obama’s eligibility, the resulting “decision[s]” must provide assurances to a moral certainty that the correct answer has indeed been obtained in both fact and law — otherwise, further inquiry needs to be had in other fora. For the consequences of an incorrect answer on the ultimate issue, later exposed as such, are far too serious to allow for any lesser degree of surety. Never were the stakes from a game of “truth or consequences” higher than they are now.<br /><br />Assume, however, that no inquiry, or only a perfunctory inquiry, or only an obviously tainted inquiry takes place at the stage of counting the Electors’ votes. Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief <i>as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity,</i> as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign — such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they “cling.”<br /><br />For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the Clinton “assault-weapons ban” (or some equally obnoxious affront to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and the Second Amendment), the defendant will undeniably have “standing” to challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such a ban even exists, because the original “Bill which * * * passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” was never “presented to the President of the United States”, and therefore could never “become a Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains thereafter nothing but an usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and Article II, Section 1, 4]<br /><br />Plainly, a criminal trial arising under a supposed law of the United States is a “Case” to which “the judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend”; and the defense as well will raise a specific issue “arising under th[e] Constitution, [and] the Laws of the United States.” [Article III, Section 2, Clause 1] The defendant will be suffering serious “injury in fact:” namely, a criminal indictment and a compulsory trial, with the possibility of a conviction, imprisonment, and, if the infraction is called a “felony,” the forfeiture of many civil rights even after his release from incarceration. The prosecutor on one side and the defendant on the other will be adversaries espousing diametrically opposed and irreconcilable positions — so the “Case” cannot be deemed in any way collusive. The purported statute’s invalidity by virtue of its legal nonexistence will be “ripe” for decision, because the statute is the basis for the indictment, and its invalidity the foundation of the defense to the charge. And, unless and until the prosecutor importunes the court to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, the issue of the putative statute’s legal nonexistence and inapplicability to the defendant will be anything but moot.<br /><br />In addition, the entire matter certainly does not raise a nonjusticiable “political question.” As Chief Justice John Marshall explained, “[t]he province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive can never be made in this court.” [<i>Marbury v. Madison</i>, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803)] That definition excludes the hypothetical criminal case under consideration here:<br /><br />First, “the rights of individuals” will most assuredly and palpably be involved: namely, the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. [Amendment V]<br /><br />Second, the question at issue will not be “political,” in the sense that it asks “how the executive, or executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.” Rather, the question will be whether Obama <i>is or even could be</i> “the executive” at all. Self-evidently, Barack Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) can enjoy no “discretion” to pretend to be the President if he is not even eligible for that office in the first place.<br /><br />Third, the question at issue will not have been “by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive.” It is not for Obama (or anyone else in his position) unilaterally to determine that he is eligible for the Office of President, with everyone else in the country required to take his unsubstantiated word for it. “[T]he constitution and laws” do not extend to an usurper a license to perpetuate his usurpation simply by denying — indeed, <i>falsely</i> denying — that he is such. And if Obama honestly believes that he can prove his eligibility to We the People’s reasonable satisfaction, the Constitution actually requires him to do so when challenged: For the President must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” [Article II, Section 3] “Th[e] Constitution * * * shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” [Article VI, Clause 2] The Constitution declares that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President.” [Article II, Section 1, Clause 4] And if the latter provision is to “be faithfully executed” by Obama as “President,” and the objective evidence necessary for that execution is in Obama’s own hands or subject to his control, then Obama, as the <i>“President” whom he claims to be,</i> must bring forth that evidence <i>sine die</i> in order to fulfill the very duty that he has taken an “Oath or Affirmation” to “faithfully execute.” [Article II, Section 1, Clause 7]<br /><br />Fourth, (as explained above) the Twelfth Amendment and the relevant Congressional statute purporting to implement it do not render the question closed (and therefore arguably “political”) — unless Congress has actually performed a constitutionally sufficient inquiry, based upon all of the available evidence, that is at least as searching, thorough, and politically neutral as might be conducted in a proper court of law by actual adversaries.<br /><br />Fifth, notwithstanding whatever may have happened when the Electors’ votes were counted, thereafter the political branches of the General Government have affirmatively committed this issue to the final determination of the courts. The hypothetical “assault-weapons” statute was enacted by Congress and signed by Obama, with the intention that it be enforced through criminal prosecutions. The statute’s enforcement is actually before the court, at the insistence of the Legislative and Executive Branches. The statute’s constitutionality is being challenged by an individual directly injured through its application to him. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” [<i>Marbury v. Madison</i>, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 178 (1803)] And if there is no true “President”, because Obama is not “eligible to the Office of President”, then the statute is not simply “unconstitutional” but even is nonexistent, and the indictment an absolute nullity.<br /><br />Sixth, the question of whether Obama is “eligible to the Office of President” is eminently within the jurisdiction, competence, experience, and workaday procedures of the judiciary to answer. Courts are thoroughly familiar with how to subpoena witnesses, compel the production of documents, establish the authenticity of documents through objective forensic analyses and the testimony of disinterested experts, and otherwise ascertain facts through application of the rules of evidence in adversarial litigation. Conversely, this is not what ordinary voters or Electors do, or are competent to do. And if it may be what the Constitution authorizes Congress to do in some circumstances, as hypothesized in this situation Congress has not done and will not do so to a constitutionally sufficient degree.<br /><br />Moreover, Congress cannot perform a simulacrum of this procedure by “remov[ing Obama] from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” [Article II, Section IV] For, if he is not “eligible to the Office of President” at all, then Obama is not “the President,” and therefore cannot be removed from an office that he does not, and cannot, even occupy — and has never occupied. In addition, even if “Impeachment” of a plain usurper were constitutionally possible, Congress could not “waive” its duty in that regard, do nothing, and collude with the pretender in order to enable him to continue his imposture indefinitely.<br /><br />Seventh, the defendant in this hypothetical criminal prosecution can invoke the Sixth Amendment: namely, “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor * * *.” Presumably, a properly represented defendant would subpoena Obama himself as the indispensable witness, requiring him to bring into court whatever records were in his possession or subject to his control that in any way evidenced, related to, or referred to the time, place, and circumstances of his birth, or to his citizenship, application for citizenship, renunciation of citizenship, or oath of allegiance in or to any country. This would include the original of his supposed Hawaiian birth certificate; every subsequent Hawaiian “certification of live birth” or like document created by public authorities; every other “birth certificate” or equivalent document whenever, wherever, and by whomever generated in the name of “Barack Obama” or any of his several other names; every document submitted to an educational institution that contained information or representations concerning his place of birth or citizenship; and so on. In the interest of expediting the process, the custodians of records in Hawaii would also be subpoenaed to testify and to produce all relevant documents subject to their control. To be sure, Obama himself might invoke a privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment as the grounds for refusing to testify or to disgorge inculpatory papers. But custodians of public records in Hawaii or elsewhere throughout the United States have no such privilege. And no Hawaiian or other law of the States or the General Government purporting to make those records “confidential” can frustrate the Sixth Amendment.<br /><br />So much for the legalities of the situation. Personally, I find this whole controversy — although it is of great constitutional significance — to be a monumental distraction from what is desperately needed for this country’s security. The problems now confronting America cannot be solved simply by ensconcing in the President’s chair one charismatic “Leader” as opposed to another — be he Barack Obama or the Archangel Michael (neither of whom, absent a proper birth certificate, is “eligible to the Office of President”). For the Leader Principle at the very top demands the Follower Principle all the way down to the bottom. And both are anathema and inimical to the Constitution of the United States — especially the latter, because a nation of self-governing individuals cannot be a nation of blind, bleating followers.<br /><br />Intoxication with the Leader Principle over many decades has led America, staggering and slipping on her own political vomit, to this sorry pass. Even more than the drinkers, though, the purveyors of the political liquor are now going to pay the price with an industrial-strength hangover. They have, as it were, “bet the farm” on Obama — either oblivious to the problem that he may not be “eligible to the Office of President” at all, or confident that they are so powerful (and the American people such dopes, dupes, and cowards) that nothing will be done even if the truth should come out. But no one is that powerful. So, however this case turns out, the Establishment will suffer a reverse from which it likely can never recover.<br /><br />If the courts finally do their duty, and Obama is exposed as an usurper, the legitimacy of the rest of the political system will be eviscerated (and the legitimacy of even the courts will be in doubt, because their intervention was so reluctant and tardy). Whereas, if the courts cover up the matter in case after case on spurious grounds, incarcerating one after another American on the trumped-up charges of an usurper — and they will have to keep up the pretense in case after case if the whole house of cards is not to collapse — the legitimacy of the entire political system will utterly evaporate. (To be sure, Obama’s Department of Justice could refrain from prosecuting anyone under new statutes; but then all of that legislation would become unenforceable.) In any case, the only institutions of government that will escape condemnation will be “the Militia of the several States”, because they will still not be in existence (unless Americans show a great deal more enthusiasm for the idea of revitalizing the Militia than they have to date) and therefore cannot be discredited.<br /><br />What will be the necessary consequence of the exposure of America’s political system as illegitimate in its entirety? <i>Power will replace law.</i> As Mao Tse-tung opined, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. And, with an usurper posing as “President,” someday soon someone will prove that aphorism true here.<br /><br />One scenario will suffice: On some Monday not so far in the future, “President” Obama meets with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to announce that “Operation Sandblaster,” for a massive nuclear attack on Iran’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction," will be launched on the coming Friday. The Joint Chiefs remonstrate, pointing out that such aggression will trigger retaliation by Russia and China, almost surely plunging the whole world into a thermonuclear World War III. “President” Obama, however, is adamant, and instructs the Joint Chiefs to have the necessary orders for “Sandblaster” — or their resignations — on his desk by Wednesday morning. Knowing that, if they resign, “President” Obama will simply appoint some unprincipled uniformed “yes men” to carry out his plan, the Joint Chiefs immediately order covert break-ins around the country to obtain his original birth certificate and other material evidence relating to his ineligibility for the Office of President. With these documents in hand, on Wednesday morning, accompanied by a contingent of heavily armed Marines, the Joint Chiefs confront “President” Obama with the evidence, arrest him as an usurper and all the Members of Congress as his co-conspirators, and appoint themselves a Military Commission to function as a “caretaker government” during the ensuing “national emergency.”<br /><br />So, at that point, because the courts did not act, and Congress did not act, and We the People did not act, the Praetorians will see fit to act. And even if the Military Commission eventually returns power to civilians, the precedent will be set in steel for “the Latin American solution” — government by <i>junta.</i> That, surely, would be “change we can believe in” — with a capital “C.”<br /><br />Not likely? If not, why not? If one man can get away with usurping the Presidency of the United States, even as the rest of the General Government, the States, and the people look the other way while mouthing legalistic mumbo jumbo to rationalize their inaction, why cannot a few men — backed up by the Armed Forces — imagine themselves justified in overthrowing and supplanting him in order to forefend a national calamity? Why cannot the bitter weeds of the fall of the Roman Republic be transplanted from the banks of the Tiber to the shores of the Potomac when the conditions conducive to their growth appear? No patriot — no reasonable American of any political persuasion — may want this to happen. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.<br /><br />So, what now? The simple solution, if Barack Obama believes that he truly is “eligible to the Office of President,” is for him to repair to Hawaii in a burst of publicity and make his original birth certificate available for examination by each and every unbiased forensic document analyst who cares to scrutinize it. And if, on the other hand, he already knows that he is ineligible, he should step aside gracefully. Now, before it is too late.<br /><br />He has no other choice, because events will give him none. When one walks in the cold shadow of Nemesis, hubris is not enough of a cloak.<br /><br /><i>Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).</i><br />© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. — All Rights ReserveUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-46852771521404019992008-12-08T00:00:00.000-08:002008-12-12T17:32:09.708-08:00Obama birth challenge refuted by SCOTUS<a target="_blank"href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/12/post_148.html">Obama birth challenge refuted by SCOTUS</a><br /><i>by</i> Thomas Lifson<br /><br />Let me get this straight. We are about to swear in a new President without checking his actual birth certificate — something many jobs require. Whatever you think about what the media call the <a target="_blank"href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16257.html">“whispering campaign”</a> about Barack Obama’s alleged failure to meet the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement for the presidency, isn’t it a bit odd not to even check to see that the requirement has been met.<br /><br />The Supreme Court just <a target="_blank"href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf">decided not to touch</a> the issue in the <i>Donofrio</i> case: “The application for stay . . . is denied” and that is that. And virtually <i>everyone</i> is much relieved about it.<br /><br />This issue has been successfully kookified, labeled as unworthy of attention. This started out normally, with the mainstream media ignoring the issue, or treating it as tinfoil hat material. Then it got eerie as even conservative talk radio ignored it. Finally, new-media, solid conservatives like <a target="_blank"href="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/05/truthers-to-the-left-of-me-truthers-to-the-right/">Michelle Malkin</a> and <a target="_blank"href="http://frontpagemag.com/blog/Read.aspx?guid=d02450b4-8572-4af4-a9ae-c1f5b03478b8">David Horowitz</a> dismissed the issue and joined the MSM in treating doubters as tin-foilers (Michelle even ran a picture of a man in such a hat with her article on the matter).<br /><br />Needless to say, the questioners will not be persuaded by the court and media, and will continue to press their case. It will be difficult row to hoe. They will be ignored, or at best mocked when they are noticed by the media. If there is any truth to their claims, proof will have to be developed without the powers of subpoena or massive public pressure. <br /><br />So we are left with the following irrefutable facts:<br /><br /><ol><li>When Barack Obama’s eligibility was challenged in court, rather than simply produce proof in the form of documentation subject to the rules of evidence, the campaign spent significant amounts of money to fight on procedural grounds. Perfectly legal, but not responsive to the question of his eligibility under the NBC clause.</li><br /><br /><li>No other mechanism than court challenges seems to exist to test eligibility under the NBC clause.</li></ol><br /><br />That would seem to suggest that the natural born citizen clause is not a constitutional test, but really more of a suggestion.<br /><br />For the moment, and probably in the end, that may be the most significant consequence of the entire case.<br /><br />Hat tip: Randall HovenUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-19020715063152681242008-12-05T00:00:00.000-08:002008-12-12T17:31:29.738-08:00Impostor in the White House?<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/05/an-imposter-in-the-white-house/">Impostor in the White House?</a><br /><i>by</i> Wesley Pruden<br /><br />President-elect Barack Obama was born under the jurisdiction of a foreign power, Britain, and is therefore ineligible to serve as president of the United States, according to a lawsuit that has reached the Supreme Court.<br /><br /><b>ANALYSIS/OPINION:</b><br />The Supreme Court will get a first look Friday at a little bomb with the potential to make a big noise. The operative word is “potential.” Almost nobody thinks the justices, who can read election returns as well as the law, will light the fuse.<br /><br />But it’s an interesting story, nevertheless, since we have not yet actually elected a president. This may come as news to millions who voted for Barack Obama and John McCain and thought Nov. 4 was the end of it. But Nov. 4 was merely the day we elected the men and women who will meet in 50 state capitals Dec. 15 to actually elect the president.<br /><br />The lawsuit, <i>Donofrio v. Wells</i>, challenges the qualifications of Barack Obama to serve as president of the United States based on whether he is a “natural born citizen” as defined in the Constitution. The court will first decide whether to hear the merits, if any, of the question.<br /><br />The particulars are complicated, as the particulars always are when the lawyers throw law books at each other.<br /><br /><i>Donofrio v. Wells</i> began when a New Jersey man, Leo Donofrio, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, the secretary of state of New Jersey, seeking to stay the election until the courts sort out the facts of the birth 46 years ago of Barack Hussein Obama. Many legal scholars say the lawsuit has scant chance of success, and the mere fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether to take up the case doesn’t necessarily mean very much.<br /><br /><i>Donofrio v. Wells</i> is only one of several legal challenges to Mr. Obama’s version of where he was born, six lawsuits in Hawaii and one each in New Jersey, Ohio, California, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania.<br /><br />Alan Keyes, who lost a race for the U.S. Senate to Mr. Obama in 2004, is perhaps the best known plaintiff. One angry plaintiff sued “the Peoples Association of Humans, Animals Conceived God’s Religions, John McCain (and) USA Govt.”; the same person earlier had sued Wikipedia, the Web encyclopedia, and “All News Media.” All were dismissed for lack of standing. Tilting at windmills is as American as filing a lawsuit.<br /><br />One of those earlier suits was filed by Philip J. Berg, a former deputy state attorney general of Pennsylvania. The judge in Philadelphia threw out the suit as “frivolous and not worthy of discussion,” and wrote a 34-page memorandum and opinion discussing why it was not worthy of discussion. Mr. Berg’s claims were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing. This suit was filed just as the Democrats were gathering for their national convention in Denver, and set off considerable buzz in the press tents. But the story died quickly in the mainstream media, Mr. Obama’s Praetorian Guard.<br /><br />But not on the blogs and obscure websites of the Internet, and the buzz returned in full throat this week. Even <i>Pravda</i>, once the mouthpiece of the Soviet Communist Party, has taken notice with a highly flavored account, accusing Mr. Obama of admitting he was not a legal citizen, which he has not.<br /><br />The gist of the accusations is that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya and his Hawaiian birth certificate is fraudulent, that it was filed through a loophole in Hawaii law that allows a birth to U.S. citizens in a foreign country to be registered as a live birth in Hawaii. The Obama campaign released a copy of the birth certificate, but not the original, and Hawaii officials, citing privacy concerns, said no one could see the original unless Mr. Obama authorized access, which he has not done.<br /><br />This has led to furious speculation on the Internet that Mr. Obama’s parents returned to Hawaii with him shortly after his birth and simply registered his Kenyan birth certificate, certified by the doctor who delivered him and by the hospital where he was born, with the Hawaii Department of Health. Why, these skeptics ask, won’t the president-elect authorize release of the original Hawaii certificate and squelch speculation once and for all?<br /><br />It’s a good question, though lack of his asking doesn’t prove anything.<br /><br />The Constitution stipulates that only “natural born” citizens are eligible to be president, and this has been interpreted to mean “born in the U.S.A.” Similar questions were raised about the eligibility of George Romney — father of Mitt — when he briefly ran for president in 1968. He was born abroad to Mormon missionary parents, both American citizens.<br /><br />Questions were raised this year about John McCain, born to Navy parents in the old U.S. Canal Zone. But that was American territory, like Guam and Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution saying a birth in the Canal Zone, which has since reverted to Panama, was OK.<br /><br />One way or another, the Supreme Court is likely to say Mr. Obama’s birth was OK, too.<br /><i>Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of</i> The Washington Times.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-31855338891815049992008-12-01T00:00:00.000-08:002008-12-12T17:30:04.124-08:00Obama Fomenting a Constitutional Crisis: Constitutional Lawyer Discusses Ramifications of Controversy<a target="_blank"href="http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2008/12/01/archive/20210273.txt">Obama Fomenting a Constitutional Crisis: Constitutional Lawyer Discusses Ramifications of Controversy</a><br /><i>by</i> John P. Connolly<br /><br />Controversy continues to surround President-elect Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, and a case involving his birth certificate waits for its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional lawyer said were it to be discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, it would have grave consequences for the nation.<br /><br />According to the Constitution, a president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Mr. Obama’s critics have failed to force him legally to produce his original birth certificate, and Mr. Obama has resisted any attempt to make him do so. Currently, only Hawaii Department of Health officials have access to Mr. Obama’s original records.<br /><br />Some of Mr. Obama’s critics have said he was born in Kenya and have claimed he is a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia, or even a British subject. <br /><br />Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.<br /><br />“Let’s assume he wasn’t born in the U.S.,” Mr. Vieira told <i>The Bulletin</i>. “What’s the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can’t make him president. So what’s the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he’s aware he’s not a citizen, then it’s a perjured oath.”<br /><br />Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.<br /><br />“He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things,” said Mr. Vieira. “The people that he’s put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped.”<br /><br />Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama’s platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered.<br /><br />“Let’s say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flimflam,” said Mr. Vieira. “What’s the nation’s reaction to that? What’s going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it.”<br /><br />Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama’s continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis.<br /><br />“If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other side wanted him to produce the thing and he said ‘no,’ I would tell him, ‘you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to produce the document, or I’m resigning as your attorney,” said Mr. Vieira. “I don’t think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil litigation [and refused to do so].”<br /><br />Further, Mr. Vieira cited a fraud ruling in a 1977 case called <i>U.S. v. Prudden</i>, which he feels applies in this case.<br /><br />“Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading,” the ruling reads. “We cannot condone this shocking conduct. . . If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.”<br /><br />Mr. Vieira said such an ethical question of representing a client who refused to produce such a basic document is important, even in a small civil case. The current question is concerning the man who potentially could have his finger next to the nuclear button.<br /><br />“[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there,” said Mr. Vieira. “What if it isn’t? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn’t there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn’t there? Does the CIA know that it isn’t there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?”<br /><br />Mr. Vieira explained all laws have to be submitted to the president. In the event that there is no valid president, then no laws passed by Congress in that administration would be legally null and void. Because of that, this case will probably not go away, even after Mr. Obama takes the oath of office.<br /><br />“If you don’t produce it, you think it’s going to go away,” he said. “There are all these cases challenging Mr. Obama, and some challenging secretaries of state, and they run into this doctrine called standing.”<br /><br />Mr. Vieira explained although legal standing is difficult to get around in Federal courts, the document could be produced in any criminal cases stemming from legislation passed in the Obama administration.<br /><br />“Let’s assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act,” said Mr. Vieira. “I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them <i>duces tecum,</i> meaning <i>‘you shall bring with you the documents.’”</i><br /><br />Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court. <br /><br />Further, records could be subpoenaed directly, in the case of a birth certificate. Once the record could be subpoenaed, the birth certificate could be examined by forensic experts, who would then be able to testify to the document’s veracity as expert witnesses. Any movement by the judges to make a special exception to the president in a criminal case would hurt the legitimacy of that presidential administration.<br /><br />“I can’t believe I’m the only lawyer who would think of this,” said Mr. Vieira. “I think any criminal lawyer defending against one of these politically charged statutes is going to come up with this. That means it will never go away until that document is laid down on the table and people say, ‘yes, there it is.’ And therefore they’re caught. If people keep challenging this and the judges out of fear keep saying ‘no, go to jail, go to jail, go to jail’ then that’s the end of the Obama administration’s legitimacy. On the other hand if they open the file and it’s not there, then that’s really the end of the administration’s legitimacy.”<br /><br />Several court cases in the birth certificate controversy are waiting admission to the Supreme Court.<br /><br />A gathering of judges will meet on Dec. 5 to decide whether or not to hear a case from New Jersey, and a decision is still pending on a case from a lawyer in Pennsylvania. Should four of the judges vote to hear the case in the Dec. 5 meeting, then it will be scheduled for hearings. Court cases from Connecticut and New York have also applied for hearings at the U.S. Supreme Court.<br /><br /><i>John P. Connolly can be reached at <a href="mailto:jconnolly@thebulletin.us">jconnolly@thebulletin.us</a>.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-41917577550175751022008-11-26T00:00:00.000-08:002008-12-12T17:29:22.296-08:00Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate<a target="_blank"href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html">Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate</a><br /><i>by</i> Joe the Farmer<br /><br />Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it’s <i>possible</i> that he’s not a natural born citizen, isn’t eligible to be President under the Constitution, and this issue could be bigger than Watergate — or any other “gate” in history? Are you afraid that if you were even to raise the subject with your friends that they will think you wear a tinfoil hat, because <a target="_blank"href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html">Factcheck.org</a>, the final arbiter of truth in the universe, said so? Are you with the news media, and after spending so much money to get Barack Obama elected, you’d hate to ruin your investment? Are you a talk radio host who thinks that if you say the burden of proof needed to demonstrate one is eligible to be Commander in Chief should be at least as high as, oh, say, the level to be eligible for Hawaiian homestead status (see <a href="http://undividedloyalty.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-barack-obama-birth-certificate.html#1F">1.F.</a> below), that you’d be forced to give equal time to someone who disagrees? Are you a conservative, libertarian, or any conscientious constitutionalist from any ideological side of life, who’s convinced something’s not right, but you’re afraid your reputation might be tarnished because, after all, this could be one big Saul Alinsky-style set-up, and the joke would be on you?<br /><br />Fear not! Joe the Farmer has prepared an outline showing that no matter how this issue is ultimately resolved, you have legitimate concerns, and that Barack Obama should, simply out of respect for the nation he was elected to lead, disclose the sealed vault copy of his birth certificate.<br /><br />Given the circumstances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures — unless, of course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull, and he’s just “another politician.” Here’s the outline:<br /><br /><ol><li>Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.</li><br /><br /><ol><li type="A">From Hawaii’s official Department of Health <a target="_blank"href="http://www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html">Vital Records webpage</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) <i>a person born in a foreign country.</i> [applies to adopted children, emphasis added]</blockquote></li><br /><li type="A">A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under <a target="_blank"href="http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0005.htm">HRS 338-5</a>.</li><br /><br /><li type="A">Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under <a target="_blank"href="http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm">HRS 338-17.8</a>. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.</li><br /><br /><li type="A">Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error (see, for example, <a target="_blank"href="http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017.htm">HRS 338-17</a>).</li><br /><br /><li type="A">Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under <a target="_blank"href="http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm">HRS 338-14.3</a>.</li><br /><a name="1F"></a><br /><li type="A">Even the <a target="_blank"href="http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl">Hawaii Department of Home Lands</a> does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its <a target="_blank"href="http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl">website</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original <i>Certificate</i> of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the <i>Certification</i> of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original <i>Certificate</i> of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated <i>Certification</i> requires additional verification by DHHL.</blockquote></li></ol><br /><li>Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii.</li><br /><br /><ol><li type="A"><a target="_blank"href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iw1At-4G1xuE50oXVFRlBPfR3dqgD945OLU00">Associated Press</a> reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, “State declares Obama birth certificate genuine.”</li><br /><br /><li type="A">That <a target="_blank"href="http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf">October 31, 2008, statement</a> says that Dr. Fukino “ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate <i>on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”</i> That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii. Unlikely, but possible.</li><br /><br /><li type="A">The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama’s birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence. Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.</li><br /><br /><li type="A">Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children. Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out of state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child’s life.</li><br /><br /><ol><li>We don’t know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama’s birth) than they are today. However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.</li><br /><br /><li>From a 2004 Department of Justice <a target="_blank"href="http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande1028_r.htm">news release</a> about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals:<br /><br /><blockquote>An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself <i>and his three foreign-born children.</i></blockquote></li><br /><li>Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the “ease” of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From <a target="_blank"href="http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_072299.html">1999 testimony</a> by one Social Security Administration official:<br /><br /><blockquote>Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, <i>usually a birth certificate</i> and immigration documents — are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain <i>fraudulently.</i></blockquote></li></ol></li></ol><br /><li>It has been reported that the Kenyan government has sealed Obama’s records. If he were born in Kenya, as has been rumored even recently, the Kenyan government would certainly have many incentives to keep that undisclosed. Objectively, of course, those records may prove nothing. Obama’s refusal to release records at many levels here in the United States, though, merely fuels speculation.</li><br /><br /><li>Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. If the burden of proof were on him, perhaps as it should be for the highest office of any individual in America, the more than dozen lawsuits challenging his eligibility would be unnecessary.<br /><br /><ol><li type="A">Had he disclosed his vault copy in the <i>Berg v. Obama</i> lawsuit (which was the first lawsuit filed on the question of his eligibility to be President), and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted <i>res judicata,</i> and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without <i>res judicata</i> (meaning, <i>the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively</i>) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn’t make sense. Weighing factors such as costs, resources and complexity of disclosing versus not disclosing, he must have reason of considerable downside in disclosing, or upside in not disclosing. There may be other reasons, but one could speculate that he hasn’t disclosed because:<br /><br /><ol><li>He was not born in Hawaii, and may not be eligible to be President;</li><br /><br /><li>He was born in Hawaii, but facts that may be derived from his vault copy birth certificate are inconsistent with the life story he has told (and sold);</li><br /><br /><li>He was born in Hawaii, and his refusal to provide the best evidence that he is a natural born citizen is a means by which to draw criticism of him in order to make him appear to be a “victim.” This would energize his supporters. This would also make other charges about him seem suspect, including his concealment about ties to Bill Ayers and others of some infamy. Such a clever yet distasteful tactic would seem to be a Machiavelli- and Saul Alinsky-style way to manipulate public opinion. But while this tactic may energize his supporters, it would convince those who believe him to be a manipulator that he’s not only just that, but a real pro at it. This would indeed be the basest reason of all, and would have repercussions about his trustworthiness (both here and abroad), which Americans know, is a characteristic sorely lacking in its leaders.</li></ol></li><br /><li type="A">His motion to dismiss the <i>Berg</i> case for lack of standing could be viewed as contemptuous of the Constitution. See <a target="_blank"href="http://undividedloyalty.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-enforces-constitutions-natural-born.html">“Who Enforces the Constitution’s ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause?”</a> Are we to expect yet another White House that hides behind lawyers, and expects Americans to swallow half-truths on a “just trust me” basis?</li><br /><br /><li type="A">This issue poses the potential for a constitutional crisis unlike anything this country has seen. Disclosure at this stage, however, could even result in criminal sanctions. See <a target="_blank"href="http://undividedloyalty.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-must-stand-up-now-or-step-down.html">“Obama Must Stand up now or Step Down.”</a> Thus, he has motive not to disclose if he were ineligible.</li></ol></li></ol>The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a right-wing conspiracy, is what’s the downside of disclosing? This is a legitimate issue of inquiry because Barack Obama has turned it into one. The growing number of people who demand an answer in conformance with the Constitution are doing their work; the people’s watchdogs aren’t.<br /><br /><i>The pen name Joe the Farmer pays tribute to Joe the Plumber, who had the audacity to ask a question.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-87093224448242170152008-11-13T00:00:00.000-08:002008-12-12T17:28:24.275-08:00Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are “garbage”<a target="_blank"href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928">Legal challenges spring up across U.S., demand proof of eligibility for office</a><br /><i>by</i> Chelsea Schilling<br /><br />More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.<br /><br />An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded.<br /><br />“All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.”<br /><br />WND is tracking the progress of many cases across the U.S., including the following:<br /><br /><b>Ohio</b><br />David M. Neal of Turtlecreek Township, Ohio, filed suit in Warren Common Pleas Court in October to force Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported.<br /><br />Warren County Magistrate Andrew Hasselbach denied Neal’s request, saying, “The onus is upon one who challenges such public officer to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by admissible evidence — not hearsay, conclusory allegations or pure speculation.”<br /><br /><b>Connecticut</b><br />Connecticut resident Cort Wrotnowski challenged the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate on Oct. 31, and asked the court to order Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz to verify Obama’s citizenship before allowing the candidate to appear on the state ballot. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers threw out the case for lack of jurisdiction within a half hour of reviewing it.<br /><br />“I have not seen the ruling yet,” Wrotnowski told WND. “So, in reality, the case was not heard on its merits. . . . Currently, we are assembling information for another and better try.”<br /><br /><b>Washington</b><br />As WND <a target="_blank"href="http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111">reported earlier</a>, Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to “prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters” who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.<br /><br />Marquis said Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate isn’t evidence that the president-elect is a natural-born citizen because it doesn’t reveal the hospital where Obama was born, a doctor’s name or the baby’s footprint, the Associated Press reported.<br /><br />Superior Court Judge John Erlick dismissed the lawsuit, claiming the secretary of state does not have authority to inquire about Obama’s birth certificate. He also said Marquis failed to name Obama as a party to the lawsuit.<br /><br /><b>New Jersey</b><br />In <i><a target="_blank"href="http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/">Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey</a></i>, retired attorney and New Jersey resident Leo. C. Donofrio asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay on Nov. 3 prohibiting <i>three</i> candidates from appearing on New Jersey’s ballots: Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Roger Calero.<br /><br />Donofrio claimed the candidates are not “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which 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.”<br /><br />He wrote, Obama is not eligible for the presidency “even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii, since . . . Senator Obama’s father was born in Kenya and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ . . .”<br /><br />“Republican candidate John McCain was born in Panama,” the request states. “Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero was born in Nicaragua. And the birthplace of Democratic candidate Barack Obama has not been verified by Respondent.”<br /><br />Donofrio said Panama has never been considered U.S. soil, and that McCain is merely a citizen at birth by statute, and not a “natural born citizen.”<br /><br />With three ineligible presidential candidates on ballots, Donofrio warned, New Jersey voters will “witness firsthand the fraud their electoral process has become.”<br /><br />Justice David Souter denied Donofrio’s application on Nov. 6. However, his case is still pending as an emergency stay application. Donofrio is resubmitting his request for an emergency stay of the national election results and Electoral College meeting to Justice Clarence Thomas.<br /><br /><b>Pennsylvania</b><br />As WND reported earlier, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court three months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.<br /><br />Berg claimed that by failing to respond Obama has legally “admitted” to the lawsuit’s accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.<br /><br />U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed Berg’s argument on Oct, 24, ruling that he lacked standing to bring the case. He said Berg’s allegations were “too vague and too attenuated.”<br /><br />“This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution,” Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right blog. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be president of the United States — the commander in chief, the most powerful person in the world — then who does?”<br /><br />Berg filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 30, to force Obama to produce his birth certificate. Justice David Souter rejected an emergency appeal on Nov. 3, for the court to halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results until Obama documented his eligibility to run for office. However, Souter set a schedule for a response from Obama, the DNC and all co-defendants on or before Dec. 1.<br /><br />“I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama,” Berg wrote in a Nov. 7 statement. “I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of the President of the United States.”<br /><br /><b>Georgia</b><br />Rev. Tom Terry of Atlanta, Ga., appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court the day before the election to determine authenticity of Obama’s original birth certificate and his qualifications to be president.<br /><br />“I bear no personal ill will against Barack Obama,” Terry, an independent, said in a statement. “In fact, his election solely on the basis as the first African-American president-elect is a very positive thing for our nation. However, as an American, I have very grave concerns about Mr. Obama’s possible divided loyalties since he has strenuously and vigorously fought every request and every legal effort to force him to release his original birth certificate for public review and scrutiny. I think that is significant.”<br /><br />On Oct 24, Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter denied Terry’s request for an injunction against Secretary of State Karen Handel.<br /><br />“I don’t think you have standing to bring this suit,” he said. “I think that the attorney general has argued the law. I think he is correct. I think you are not a lawyer.”<br /><br />Terry is appealing his suit even though Obama didn’t win Georgia because he said he wants to set an example for other states. He is asking the court to direct Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel to decertify all votes for Obama.<br /><br />“Hopefully, this action will be noticed by other states and they will also take a serious look at the meaning of Georgia’s Supreme Court’s actions,” he said. “It is apropos that the Latin motto in the Georgia Supreme Court is interpreted: ‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.’ I think if the Court rules in my favor, that motto will come alive with meaning and impact.”<br /><br /><b>Hawaii</b><br />On Oct. 17, Andy Martin filed a writ of mandamus in Hawaii’s Supreme Court to compel Gov. Linda Lingle to release a certified copy of Obama’s vital statistics record. His request to expedite the circuit court was denied on Oct. 22.<br /><br />Martin now has a pending case seeking access to Obama’s original 1961 typewritten birth certificate. The circuit court hearing is set to begin Nov. 18.<br /><br />The saga continues . . .<br /><br />Several unconfirmed reports also indicate that citizens of Utah, Wyoming, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, California, and Virginia have also filed lawsuits or requested court orders to verify Obama’s citizenship status.<br /><br />As reported earlier, WND senior investigative reporter Jerome Corsi traveled both to Kenya and Hawaii to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth.<br /><br />But his discoveries only raised more questions.<br /><br />The governor’s office in Hawaii said he had a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin — leaving some to wonder if the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicates a Hawaiian birth or whether it was generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii.<br /><br />The Obama campaign posted a certification of live birth, a document stating the baby was born on Aug. 4, 1961. However, according to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, there is a difference between the two documents. A certification of live birth is not an authentication of Hawaiian birth, and critics say the procedure could have allowed Obama’s mother to have the baby elsewhere, return to the U.S. and obtain the document in Hawaii.<br /><br />The <a target="_blank"href="http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl">Department of Hawaiian Home Lands</a> makes a distinction between the two:<br /><br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />However, Andy Martin has specifically requested verification of the original 1961 type-written certificate of live birth — or, as the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands describes it, the “more complete record” of Obama’s birth.<br /><br />Further adding to complications, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. In a November 2004 interview with the <i>Rainbow Newsletter</i>, Maya told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu; then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the <i>Honolulu Star-Bulletin</i> that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.<br /><br />But <a target="_blank"href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FqVRWgrNw&eurl=http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2008/11/01/barack-nate-dhalani.aspx?ref=rss">a video posted on YouTube</a> features Obama’s Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya.<br /><br />Seeking to settle the issue, Hawaii Department of Health Director Director Chiyome Fukino released an <a target="_blank"href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wYOqE4H4V6U/SQ9jk0XwP8I/AAAAAAAAAZY/_LDcULdVwoc/s1600-h/08-93.JPG">Oct. 31 statement</a> saying,<br /><br /><blockquote>State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, 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 Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.</blockquote><br />The statement does not clarify whether “the record” is a certification of live birth or a Hawaiian certificate of live birth.<br /><br />Before the election, WND retained a top private investigator in Hawaii with extensive FBI training and tasked him with visiting both the Queens Medical Center and the Kaliolani Medical Center to investigate claims that Obama birth certificates existed at either hospital.<br /><br />However, the private investigator reported that sheriff’s deputies were stationed at both hospitals to fend off press inquiries about Obama’s birth certificate.<br /><br />When WND asked the Obama campaign spokeswoman why Obama simply hasn’t released the original 1961 certificate of live birth to make the lawsuits go away, she replied, “I have no idea. I think they released what they chose to release, and Hawaii has confirmed that he was born in Hawaii, so I don’t know what else you want.”<br />© 2008 WorldNetDailyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-52667838533868323302008-10-30T00:00:00.000-07:002008-12-12T17:27:46.934-08:00WILL THE NEXT US PRESIDENT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?<a target="_blank"href="http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news105.htm">Will the Next US President be Unconstitutional?</a><br /><i>by</i> Jim Kouri<br /><br />In spite of the fact that the presidential election is only a week away, some Americans are continuing their quest for access to Senator Barack Obama’s original birth certificate supposedly on file in Honolulu, Hawaii, where he and his campaign claim he was born.<br /><br />So far efforts to achieve the obviously simple goal of viewing a presidential candidate’s birth records are being met with one roadblock after another. Making it even more suspicious is the fact that the vast majority of the mainstream news media are avoiding the issue of Obama’s birth certificate as if it were the plague. <br /><br />Except for some radio talk show hosts, conservative bloggers and a few TV news people, the mainstream media — always willing to carry the water for the liberal left — are purposely ignoring the simple fact that Obama and his camp are stonewalling efforts to prove or disprove his being born a citizen, according to political strategists such as New Jersey’s Mike Baker.<br /><br />According to the <a target="_blank"href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html">US Constitution</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. . .</blockquote><br />“When Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for — and won — the governorship of California, many in the liberal Republican establishment and the new media lamented the fact that he was not an American-born citizen and therefore was ineligible to run for president of this nation. Now it seems these same people are looking the other way to avoid exposing Senator Obama as an unconstitutional presidential candidate,” said Baker in an interview with NewswithViews.com.<br /><br />One of the largest efforts to expose Barack Obama as an illegal presidential candidate was initiated by Philip Berg, an attorney in the so-called battleground state of Pennsylvania.<br /><br /><a target="_blank"href="http://obamacrimes.com/">Berg</a>, the Plaintiff, states in <a target="_blank"href="http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/773/2/">court papers</a> that he is a lifelong Democrat who had always been proud of his party:<br /><br /><blockquote>Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in good standing and has taken an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Plaintiff and many other citizens of the United States have donated money and time to Democratic Presidential candidates as well as to the Democratic National Committee, in reliance on promises and assurances made by the DNC in the Democratic Party Agenda. It provides that the Democrat Party’s goals, among others, are to “restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government,” to “restore the Constitution and protect the civil rights and liberties of all Americans” and to “uphold the Constitution.” <br /><br />To uphold the Constitution includes making sure that the Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of our United States Constitution and that such candidate runs a fair and legitimate campaign.<br /><br />In vetting the Presidential candidate the DNC and FEC are required to ensure the eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and the Presidential candidate, if elected, would be eligible to serve as President. To be eligible and qualified to run for and/or serve for Office of the President of the United States a person must be a “natural born” citizen. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I. The natural born citizen clause has prohibited many prominent Americans from becoming President, including Governor Schwarzenegger and former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger.<br /><br />The DNC has nominated Obama as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. There are many unanswered questions regarding Obama’s citizenship status:<br /><ol><li>Is Obama a “natural born” United States citizen?</li><li>Is Obama a “naturalized” United States citizen?</li><li>Is Obama a citizen of Indonesia?</li></ol></blockquote>Unfortunately, Judge Richard Barclay Surrick ruled that Philip Berg, an attorney in the state of Pennsylvania, lacked standing to bring such a suit. This ruling was a slap in the face of Berg, who once served as a deputy attorney general in Pennsylvania.<br /><br />While Berg claims he will appeal Judge Surrick’s decision, it may be much too late should Obama win the November 4 election.<br /><br />Berg said, “I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick’s decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.”<br /><br />“This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States — the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world — then who does?” he asked.<br /><br />“So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned,” Berg stated in a press statement following the judge’s ruling.<br /><br />“According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution,” Berg added.<br /><br />Meanwhile, in Hawaii, the Obama campaign is being equally successful in <a target="_blank"href="http://hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?540ca50a-154d-4000-bf5e-ce03204a3f5a">preventing the examination</a> of a legal birth certificate. <br /><br />The Hawaii Supreme Court has denied efforts by mainland political columnist Andy Martin to obtain a copy of Barack Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate. See the <a target="_blank"href="http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2008/29414ord.pdf">full ruling</a>.<br /><br />Martin, a self-described “legendary Chicago muckraker,” issued a press statement several days ago to announce that he is in Honolulu to “investigate” Obama’s background in Hawaii. <br /><br />Part of his examination was to include obtaining a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, verifying that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii and not out of country. To be qualified to run for president, candidates must be born in America.<br /><br />“Obama has refused to release personal documents including his birth certificate, leading to suspicion among some voters that he’s covering up his true place of birth out of country,” Martin told the <i>Hawaii Reporter</i>. <br /><br />Martin, who authored <i>Obama: The Man Behind The Mask</i>, is the Executive Editor and publisher of <a target="_blank"href="http://contrariancommentary.com/">ContrarianCommentary.com</a>.<br /><br /><b>THUG TACTICS?</b><br />Besides blocking access to Barack Obama’s birth certificate and other documents, the Obama camp is using what are being characterized as intimidation tactics to silence opponents.<br /><br />For example, the Obama campaign has threatened to sue media outlets in Missouri that air ads that are negative and misleading about the Democrat presidential contender. This in addition to flash-mobbing and phone spamming against David Freddoso because of his new book The Case Against Barack Obama, in addition to banning signs at rallies on taxpayer free-speech protected properties. <br /><br />According to author Mike Parrish, Obama’s campaign workers asked the Department of Justice to prosecute the American Issues Project for telling the truth about the Senator and his political views.<br /><br />“It appears they are little concerned with American values and much prefer community agitation a la Saul Alinsky, an avowed Marist. Perhaps they will be slightly more concerned about the higher profile response of Missouri’s Governor that brings this to national attention,” said Parrish.<br /><br />This is the statement that <a target="_blank"href="http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj">Governor Matt Blunt’s office</a> released.<br /><br /><blockquote>Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.<br /><br /><blockquote>St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.<br /><br />What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.<br /><br />This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideal of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.<br /><br />Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts — not a free society.</blockquote></blockquote><br />In addition, NewsWithViews.com received complaints from rank and file police officers that they are being forced to help the Obama campaign by providing men and women in uniform to stand with the Senator during campaign stops. <br /><br />“This is going on in cities and towns where the mayors or city managers are Democrats or weak Republicans,” said former NYPD detective and US Marine Sidney Francis.<br /><br />While Obama uses cops as props and goon squads, the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of police officers in the US does not endorse or support Barack Obama.<br /><br />In one incident Senator Obama’s campaign attempted to silence a sheriff in Florida who dared to utter Obama’s middle name:<br /><br />Lee County, FL Sheriff Mike Scott never expected to create a firestorm when he used the full name of the Democrat Party’s presidential candidate “Barack Hussein Obama.”<br /><br />At a rally in Estero, Florida, for GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the highly decorated law enforcement executive was the pre-rally speaker for the Palin appearance. As with most political rallies, the job of pre-rally speakers is to warm-up the audience. <br /><br />According to <a target="_blank"href="http://www.gopusa.com/">GOPUSA</a>’s Bobby Eberle whether the audience is cheering wildly or booing loudly, the pre-rally speakers are there to wake them up and get them going. So Sheriff Scott stepped to the podium and said, “On November 4, let’s leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened.”<br /><br />Apparently, saying “Barak Hussein Obama” in public might just get you a visit from the FBI. Just ask Sheriff Mike Scott who is under investigation for referring to Obama at a campaign rally by his full name.<br /><br />Sheriff Scott responded to Obama’s goon squad by saying: “I absolutely, unequivocally don’t regret saying it,” Scott told the <i>News-Press</i> on Monday. “In order to be a speaker at this event, I had to give my full name — Michael Joseph Scott — to the Secret Service, even though I’m the sheriff of Lee County. So why would I apologize? Is there some kind of double standard here where I have to give my full name, but I can’t use his?”<br /><br />“If Obama becomes president he will eventually be exposed as a fraud, but it will be too late. The Democrat Party will have control of both houses of Congress and the White House. And too many Republicans have become big-spending liberals who are willing to go along with a socialist agenda as long as they keep their jobs,” adds Mike Baker.<br /><br />“These will be dangerous times, mark my words: the police and the military will be used against American citizens. Think of Waco, Texas, but on a national scale,” warns Det. Frances.<br /><br />“An Obama presidency may be the beginning of the end of the US Constitution,” he said.<br />© 2008 NWV — All Rights ReservedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-6460942399027286692008-10-29T00:00:00.001-07:002008-12-12T17:27:06.706-08:00OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN<a target="_blank"href="http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm">Obama Must Stand up now or Step Down</a><br /><i>by</i> Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.<br /><br />America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship — or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States — <i>preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets.</i> Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”<br /><br />Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility — unless he can not?<br /><br />Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” <i>Bute v. Illinois</i>, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied <i>before</i> that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. <i>Actually</i> (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent <i>sine qua non</i> for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.<br /><br />In disposing of the lawsuit <i>Berg v. Obama</i>, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “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 hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him — rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” <i>If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.</i><br /><br />The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:<br /><br /><blockquote>regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.</blockquote><br />This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.<br /><br />First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing” — a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.<br /><br />True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually <i>anti-</i>constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3) — in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. <i>And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government.</i> Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).<br /><br />Second, the notion upon which the judge in <i>Berg v. Obama</i> fastened — namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” <i>i.e.,</i> if <i>everyone</i> is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing” — is absurd on its face.<br /><br />To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or <i>any</i> Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?<br /><br />These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an <i>outright usurper</i> purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical — for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, <i>precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President,</i> sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed — irretrievably, should the threat become actuality — <i>including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People.</i> Therefore, in this situation, <i>any and every American must have “standing” to demand — and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion — that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”</i><br /><br />Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in <i>Berg v. Obama</i> that, <br /><br /><blockquote>[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .</blockquote><br />Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress <i>constitutionally</i> grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means — then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” <i>Marbury v. Madison</i>, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173–180 (1803). <br /><br />In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action” — directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution — to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.<br /><br />What are some of those consequences?<br /><br />First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply <i>not</i> eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he <i>cannot</i> be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote <i>inter sese</i> (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an <i>usurper,</i> because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.<br /><br />Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.<br /><br />Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:<br /><br /><blockquote>[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.</blockquote><br />Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States” — in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”<br /><br />Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline — and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”<br /><br />Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void <i>ab initio,</i> no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.<br /><br />Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”<br /><br />Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him — with physical force, if he would not go along quietly — in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.<br /><br />Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his <i>faux</i> “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.<br /><br />The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” <i>And inevitably the truth will out.</i> For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. <i>On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.</i><br /><br /><i>Berg v. Obama</i> may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship <i>sua sponte et instanter.</i> Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.<br /><br />Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country — the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.<br /><br />© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. — All Rights ReserveUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-14254451171121821642008-10-29T00:00:00.000-07:002008-12-12T17:25:43.311-08:00Who Enforces the Constitution’s “Natural Born Citizen” Clause?<a target="_blank"href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html">Who Enforces the Constitution’s “Natural Born Citizen” Clause?</a><br /><i>by</i> Mark J. Fitzgibbons<br /><br />If you believe in individual rights and the notion that our Constitution is a document granting enumerated but limited powers to the federal government, then you have reason to be troubled by the recent dismissal in <i><a target="_blank"href="http://obamacrimes.com/">Berg v. Obama</a> et al.</i><br /><br />Philip Berg, Democrat and former Assistant Attorney General for Pennsylvania, brought suit alleging that under the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama is ineligible to be president. Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick recently granted the motion to dismiss filed by Senator Obama and other defendants, including the Democratic National Committee, on grounds that Berg lacked standing to sue as a mere voter.<br /><br />The judicial doctrine of standing is important. It is a requirement that plaintiffs have a real stake in the outcome of a real controversy. This prevents, among other problems, persons bringing lawsuits simply to harass defendants. The judicial doctrine of standing is one of many judicial doctrines designed to limit the courts from being overloaded with cases that aren’t properly resolvable by the courts, such as ripeness (case brought too soon), mootness (case brought too late), lack of jurisdiction, etc.<br /><br />When constitutional rights are at stake, courts have tended to give wider latitude to the standing of plaintiffs. The theory is that another person’s loss of constitutional rights may indeed affect one’s own constitutional rights.<br /><br />Judge Surrick’s carefully worded opinion cites to cases where standing was at issue, including a similar case in which the eligibility of John McCain to be president was challenged. In deciding that “a candidate’s ineligibility under the “natural born citizen” clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters,” Judge Surrick writes in a footnote of potentially considerable consequence:<br /><br /><blockquote>If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring . . .</blockquote><br />Here’s where I believe Judge Surrick’s decision breaks down from a constitutional perspective.<br /><br />The enumerated powers of the respective branches of government are set forth in the first three articles of the Constitution. <a target="_blank"href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html">Article III</a> states that the judicial power is vested in the courts, and “shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . .”<br /><br />A case about whether a candidate is a natural born citizen seems quite clearly to arise under the Constitution, and thus within the exclusive domain of the courts. Under the language of the Constitution itself, there appears to be no need for Congress to pass a law authorizing individuals to file suit, or for courts to hear such challenges. In fact, there may be a separation of powers issue if Congress were to attempt to legislate broader or narrower access to the courts to hear constitutional challenges. That could infringe on the jurisdiction of the courts “to all Cases . . . arising under this Constitution.”<br /><br />Secondly, the enumerated powers of Congress under <a target="_blank"href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html">Article I</a> do not extend to dictating who may have standing to sue under the Constitution. One may argue that Judge Surrick relied on what some believe to be the catch-all “Necessary and Proper Clause” in Article I, Section 8[18]. That authorizes Congress:<br /><br /><blockquote>To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.</blockquote><br />Judge Surrick, however, never cites to that clause as his reason. Indeed, it would be inherently dangerous to our freedoms if Congress could dictate who can and cannot sue to enforce the Constitution.<br /><br />So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?<br /><br />The <a target="_blank"href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">10th Amendment</a> to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people. Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the “natural born citizen” clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.<br /><br />Disputes under the “natural born citizen” clause are few and far between, so Judge Surrick couldn’t have been worried about his court being flooded with new cases. In this presidential election, however, both candidates of the two major parties were faced with similar challenges. Both filed motions to dismiss for lack of standing.<br /><br />It’s a shame these cases didn’t get more attention and scrutiny based simply on how the candidates handled them. When faced with the potential for public reprobation before either acquired the ominous powers of the presidency, both candidates chose a path indicating preference for their own power over the rights of individuals.<br /><br />Although the merits of the <i>Berg</i> case weren’t reached, Senator Obama has raised concerns in other contexts about his obscured and under-scrutinized views on “collective” rights as opposed to rights of individuals. His motion to dismiss for lack of standing doesn’t portend well for how he would view individual rights under the Constitution if he were elected president.<br /><br />Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in <i>Marbury v. Madison</i>, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines. Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty. <br /><br />His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case. Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.<br /><br /><i>Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising, Inc., Manassas, VA.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-25707612041808173322008-10-08T00:00:00.000-07:002008-12-12T17:24:53.238-08:00Barack Obama Born in Kenya?<p><br /></p><br /><center><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yl1K94ALlTA&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yl1K94ALlTA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><p><br /></p><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-4FqVRWgrNw&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-4FqVRWgrNw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></center><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-83924669414856486392007-09-16T00:00:00.001-07:002008-12-13T08:15:26.490-08:00National Anthem<p><br /></p><br /><center><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fwog6E08CFU&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fwog6E08CFU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></center><br /><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-795086649592423530.post-86339614900063210762007-09-16T00:00:00.000-07:002008-12-13T08:12:35.839-08:00National Anthem<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7B5qIdTGaBk/SUPegVLnfRI/AAAAAAAAABY/9JYu44K8n_8/legiance.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7B5qIdTGaBk/SUPegVLnfRI/AAAAAAAAABY/9JYu44K8n_8/legiance.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5279307835231403282" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com