Obama Citizenship Still Not Settled

A friend of mine sent me this article and asked me to repost it.

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

One of the original legal challenges to President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility for office to reach the U.S. Supreme Court now has been scheduled for a conference, a meeting at which the justices discuss its merits and whether to step into the fray.


Online schedules posted by the court show the case brought by attorney Philip J. Berg is set for a conference Jan. 9.


The case is one among several that already have reached the U.S. Supreme Court and address the issue of Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.


Berg has submitted several requests for injunctions, seeking the court's order to stay proceedings in the electoral process until his case is heard, but the request have been rejected.


His original claim, however, remains on track to be heard.






"I know that Mr.
Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes. com website.


"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.



Supreme Court docketing information


The justices already have discussed two cases in conference but refused to give them further hearings.


WND previously reported on cases brought by Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio that both challenged Obama on allegations that dual citizenship based on a father who was a British subject and a mother who was an American minor disqualified him from office. Both, however, were turned back by the Supreme Court.



Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S.
or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 185,000 others and sign up now!

As WND has reported, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.


The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "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.
"



Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.


Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.


Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.


Perhaps the most perplexing detail, however, has been Obama's refusal to allow the public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.


A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:

Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied. But the conference on the case is set Jan. 9.



Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.


Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.


Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.


Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.



Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.



In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state 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 case was denied.



In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.



In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.


California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.



Private investigator Douglas Hagmann of HomelandSecurityUS. com reported earlier he found 13 cases challenging Obama's eligibility still active or semi-active.


Last month, WND reported the worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could loom over the issue of Obama's citizenship.


"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues the Alan Keyes case pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.
"

With such high stakes, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.


That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.


A separate petition, already signed by more than 185,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.


WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.


The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.


The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. A one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birthplace in Kenya already was being recognized.

I predicted this some time ago.

Yes I predicted this. It is a prediction I had hoped would never come true. But it looks like this prediction is well on its way to becoming fact. It has to do with California and its Proposition 8 initiative that was passed by the voters of that state back on November 4, 2008.

Now I have said that liberals would attempt to make the Constitution ruled unconstitutional. Low and behold, the CA Attorney General now is urging the CA State Supreme Court to rule that this voter passed Constitutional Amendment be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Yahoo News reports that Jerry Brown, the states Attorney General, is urging the Court to rule this vote and amendment unconstitutional. This is ridiculous. If the CA Supreme Court rules that a particular part of the their Constitution is unconstitutional, then there is nothing in the Constitution that is safe. There is nothing, no right, no amendment that can be reversed or eliminated by a judge. We the People mean nothing and we are in grave danger.

Of course, some on the left are saying this is a retroactive amendment and law because that Supreme Court ruled that gays could get married. Well if the Court accepts that argument, then Civil rights could be reversed based on the same argument. Slavery could be reversed based on the same argument because slavery was upheld by courts prior to their being an amendment abolishing it.

This may sound extreme but thing about it. Not to mention, the Federal Government would have to give back billions of dollars because of the retroactive tax President Bill Clinton proposed and signed into law back in the mid 90's.

This has got to be one of the most dangerous arguments yet that attacks the very core and foundation of our Constitution. You cannot strike down a Constitutional amendment. The courts have no jurisdiction in that area. In fact the Constitution gives us specific instructions on how to amend it and who has the power to amend it. The courts have no power to amend or change the constitution. It is solely in the hands of the people and their elected representatives.

The people of CA legally voted on this proposition. Like the outcome or not, it was legal and the only way to change it is to amend it again. If the courts decide to amend this amendment, it will set a precedence that will tear our nation apart and put every state constitution and our Federal Constitution on the chopping block.

Even if you don't live in California, you need to make your voice heard on this. We cannot allow a minority to totally undermine and ruin our great nation. This cannot be allowed to stand. Your liberty and freedom is now in jeopardy, just as I predicted some time ago. Do you want a judge to decide the fate of our nation, your life? I didn't think so.

A French man lectures Americans

You know America has to be the most wonderful place on the planet when you have other nations praising the American people for electing a half African, born and partially raised Muslim to the office of President.

Oh now don't get in a tizzy. Look at the facts not your feelings. Barack was born to a white American woman and an African Kenyan who was a Muslim. Now in the world of the Muslim, that makes the child a Muslim. And indeed Barack attended Muslim schools up until his return to the USA at the age of about 10. So don't get on me about saying Barack is half Muslim because the facts are the facts.

Do I believe he is a Christian now? Well, I have to take him at his word and the fact that he sat in a racist Christian church for about 20 years. But that does not mean he has broken his ties with his Muslim heritage. In fact many of his relatives on his fathers side still reside in Kenya and still are Muslims. It is very hard to totally disregard you childhood and your early training.

But that is not the real topic of this article. The real topic is how the whole world now views the USA in a different light because we elected Obama. How about this story by Ethan Bronner out of Gaza City, Gaza Strip. For those of you that don't know where that is, look on your world map and locate Israel. Now look to the west and you will find Gaza Strip. Yes it looks like a strip. Thus the name.

But again I digress. Ethan writes in an article titled “Around the World, Many See an Ideal Renewed.” An ideal RENEWED? Ethan starts his article thus:

“From far away, this is how it looks: There is a country out there where tens of millions of white Christians, voting freely, select as their leader a black man of modest origin, the son of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth – call it America – where such a thing happens.”

OK, now this is just so wrong on so many levels. I don't even know where to begin. How about the fact that Barack got about 60 million votes and of that tens of millions of those votes were cast by non whites. Do the people of the middle east think that the USA is made up of 300 million white people? Come on, we are talking about people who want to rid the world of some other white people called Jews and they have nerve to lecture us about human rights?

Now I wont rewrite the whole article here but there is another point in the article that really frosted me. “Even where the United States is held in special contempt, like here in this benighted Palestinian coastal strip, the “glorious epic of Barack Obama,” as the leftist French editor Jean Daniel calls it, makes America – the idea as much as the actual place – stand again, perhaps only fleetingly, for limitless possibility.”

Hey Jean Daniel, the very existence of the USA is due to the limitless possibility of its people and its government ideals. America has been an actual place for over 200 years and we have stood the test of time while your very own nation has gone through, what, three forms of government.

Are we in the USA going to have to deal with what the rest of the world thinks of us? Seriously, will Obama bend to the will of the world and change our nation to look more like the failed governments of the world?

Hey Jean Daniel, people are dying and risking life and limb to get into the USA. They travel through the desert heat of the day and the freezing cold in the dark of night to get here. They build shanty floating craft to cross great expanses of water to get here. The float clinging to the side of rafts with their children huddling in the middle of that raft in order to get here. The last time I checked, people were not flocking to France or most other nations on this planet. We have had one stable government for over 200 years while your left leaning country has had three. And you have nerve to tell us that we are now living up to our ideal as a nation. Give me a break. We have always lived up to our ideals as a nation. That is evidenced by the scores of people who flock here legally and illegally.

What scares me is that Barack may be more interested in how these leftist idiots view us instead of how we Americans want to see ourselves. We are not beholden to the world. Screw humility for a moment. We are the nation that saved the whole damned world, TWICE! And we need to listen to some leftist jerk tell us how to run our nation, how to live?

No my friends, liberty and freedom is not dictated by those who wish to limit them. Liberty and freedom is fought for and protected by those who hold it dear. That someone over the last century has been the USA. No other nation on the planet has ever done more to advance the cause of freedom than the USA. No other nation in history has accomplished what the USA has especially in such a short period of time.

But we have those who wish us to be more like them. Less free. Less open. Less prosperous. But that is not America. That is not the ideal of the USA where opportunity is limitless. Yes, in our nation, a half African can indeed become President.

And to think, we did all of this when France could not even keep its borders safe, its people safe, its government in tact. And now this arrogant, leftist idiot dares to say we now are fulfilling our ideal because we may have elected a Muslim sympathizer? I tell you to look as France right now and you will see they are having a very hard time with an overflowing population of Muslims? Is this what Jean Daniel wants for our nation as well?

I think, unlike most nations on earth, America is a place where any race, religion, nationality, creed has a chance at producing a man or woman to become President. We are a people that continues to grow simply because we love freedom and liberty. And we see that everyone deserves to experience and live in that freedom and liberty. We believe it so strongly that we are willing to die to help others get that freedom and liberty.

I guess Jean Daniel would prefer that the USA would be more like France or some Middle Eastern Nation. But if we were, who would come to the rescue of France and free them from the tyranny of some tyrant that wishes to rule over them with an iron fist? Maybe the nation of Egypt would suite his needs of an open society better. Somehow I don't see Egypt or any other nation rushing to save France and Jean Daniel from tyranny any time soon.

Guess we better keep America the land of the free and the home of the brave so we can save human rights across the world so that Jean Daniel has the freedom to say stupid stuff like this and so Ethan Bronner can write articles of absurdity such as this.

God bless America for America has definitely blessed the world.

God, guns, glory and freedom

Now I am sure you are thinking to yourself, not another post from some right wing whack nut about God and guns. Well, you would be wrong. But since you brought it up, what is wrong with God and guns? Absolutely nothing.

But what this article is about is your freedom, my freedom, the freedom of our children and their posterity. We have been given a great gift by God in the form of the United States of America. Are we a perfect nation? Hell no. Are we the best nation on the planet today and possibly in the history of man? Hell yes.

We were built on freedom and liberty. Our Founding Fathers saw fit to put into the Constitution things that would secure our freedom. Yet we seem to be willing to let our freedom go little by little and we say it is for the best.

We have now elected the most socialistic and radical President in our nation's history. Barack Obama is bent on destroying the very foundations in which our nation was built. But he is not the first.

We have anti gun laws in most states in our union. This is something that our Founding Fathers would never have stood for. Yet we modern Americans think it is for our safety. Despite the fact that gun laws only seem to keep fire arms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not the criminals. This gives the criminal the upper hand. You can see every where the people are allowed to carry a gun, violent crime goes down. Great Britain banned hand guns for its citizens and its violent crime rate shot through the roof. So much for the safety of the public.

You now have a Governor proposing taxes that would have the Founding Fathers dumping cargo into bays and ports all over the country. NY Governor Patrick wants to put taxes on what you eat and what you do. This is surely not the kind of taxation with representation that our Founding Fathers had in mind. Remember one of the reasons they went to war with King George was over taxes and how unfair and burdensome they were to the American people. Now we have elected politicians who think the best way to solve fiscal problems is to raise our taxes instead of reducing their spending. And we re-elect these people?

We have gotten thought police as well. We now have "hate" crime laws. This gives some people more protection than others. How is that anti-hate when you seem to think that a gay man is worth more than a straight man. Who cares what was in the heart and mind of the criminal when they committed the crime. It was a crime against a HUMAN BEING, period. Hate crime laws fly in the face of the Constitution that says "all men are created EQUAL". This does not leave room for special laws for special people.

We have judges who write law now or force legislators to write law. This was not the intent in the Constitution either. How can you interpret a law that does not exist? You cannot. A judge, according to the Constitution, can only interpret existing law against the Constitution. That does not give the judge the right to force a new law upon the people. That job is for the legislature alone.

Yet we seem to elect the same buffoons to office time and time again. We talk about experience when we just elected one of the least experienced people to our highest office. But then again, this may not be such a bad thing. Our Founding Fathers did not believe in career politicians. They all served a short time and went back to private life. Our politicians today seem to think when they get elected its a life long job worthy of pensions and retirement pay.

And we now have selective discrimination. You can't have a Christmas tree or a Menorah on public property in many places now. Something about "separation of church and state." What a bunch of bunk. Those words do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. I challenge anyone to find those words in the Constitution. Placing a Christmas tree in front of city hall does not constitute the state endorsing a particular religion as the state religion. It is ridiculous how this has played out. Unless you are now some protected minority religion, you have no rights on public lands? Yet we re-elect the idiots who decide this stuff for us.

I am a Christian man. I say Merry Christmas and Jesus is the reason for the Season. If you get insulted, then it is not my problem. I say Happy Chanukah to some people who are Jewish. If that offends someone who is not Jewish, tough. I like guns and own one. If that offends you, too damn bad. I express my opinion freely. You don't like it then don't listen or don't read it.

This is the United States of America and I have the right to do, say and have these things. You don't have the right to shut me up or take them away. You do have the right not to listen. Just as I have a right not to listen to you. Notice I did not say I have a right not to "hear" you. You have a right to say almost anything you want, even call me a racist term and I will hear it, but just because you say it doesn't mean you have a right to have me listen. I can ignore you. You can ignore me, but neither of us can DENY the other of our rights. And that is what is happening today in our nation.

This is the land of the free and the home of the brave and I will gladly stand up and defend her any day. I stand for God, Family, Country. In that order. God gave me my family and my country and I have a God given right to defend them and I will. And I will do so by not voting for idiots who want to take those rights away from me. I will defend my rights by opposing what our elected officials want to do if what they want to do stomps on the Constitution. I don't care if you are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Independent...it does not matter. You trash the Constitution and you and I have a major problem.

The Founding Fathers did not bleed red so that we could someday hand over our rights to a few elites in Capitols all over the land. The power was meant to stay in the hands of all the people not a few. So wake up. Stand up. Don't let your freedom slip away any further. Because if you do, you may find the only way to get it back is by bleeding yourself or worse, by the blood of your children. Now is that what you really want? I didn't think so. Oh and if it comes to that, you will need your gun.

Tax the fat.

This is for all of you who said that taxing and banning smoking was a good thing. Even though I don't smoke cigarettes, (I think they stink) I don't believe in telling someone in a free country what they can and cannot do pertaining to their health.

We have various cities all across the fruited plane banning trans fats in restaurants. You have Boston, banning Cigar Bars within city limits. You have smoking bans on private property. Now comes an idea out of New York State from the new governor there.

How about a tax on sugared soft drinks. But not a tax on diet drinks. How insane is this? Where do we live, the old Soviet Union? Who the hell do these people think they are?

Don't think for a moment this is going to stop here. The "correct" police will be coming after your food or vise soon enough.

I predicted this long ago. I said that there would be a time soon that some government agency or branch would seriously propose a "fat tax". Well low and behold, we have the Great Empire State Governor talking about just that.

Forget the fact that there is evidence that diet drinks are probably worse on your health than sugared drinks. It is a money grab plain and simple and you know who is going to suffer the most from this tax? The lower class. Yes, you got it. The very people the Liberals say we need to help by taking money from the rich and giving it to them.

Oh don't worry, the governor also has said that even though the state need to raise the extra cash, he also is going to propose a raise in welfare assistance payments. So there you go. They will give the people who drink soft drinks the most, the ability to pay for it by giving them more money so they can tax them at the cash register.

Now what do you think will happen when people drink less and less of sugared soft drinks? Will they cut the programs that these taxes will fund? Of course not. They will expand the tax to cover Snickers and Twinkies.

Listen. The Revolutionary war was started in part because of taxes. Now we have more taxes than George Washington and the Founding Fathers could of ever dreamed of. If you think they would go to war over the small taxes they had back then, what do you think they would do today if they were all alive?

First I dare say, they would have never let these idiots get elected. If they did get elected, they would have made sure that they didn't get re-elected.

A tax is one of the most freedom restricting things a government can do to its citizens without making laws (like prohibition) against such activities.

The people of NY need to stand up and say no to this kind of tax and to any other kind of new tax. We the people are taxed enough and we don't need the government telling us what to eat, drink, smoke, think, do or be. We have the sole right to those things.

Give me a break. This is the United States of America not the Soviet Socialist States of the Western Hemisphere.

Read more bout this here:

Daily News

The New York Times

A Ponzi is a Ponzi is a Ponzi unless you are the government

Bernard Madoff has pulled off what many thought could never be pulled off. He has duped investors of a reported $50 billion dollars. Yes, that is 50 BILLION! It is said that this is a record and the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of finance.

Now what does this have to do with liberty and freedom? A lot. If you were one of the unfortunate people or organization's that invested money with this guy, chances are you have taken a huge, monumental hit. Some people and organizations may have to go bankrupt. Their financial security and liberty has been threatened.

But that is only a small part of the issue. The government, obviously, wants to come down hard on this individual. Why? Because he pulled off something that was previously thought impossible. Madoff duped some of the wealthiest in our nation. It is reported, one individual may be out as much as $500 million dollars.

You may say, about time that the rich got hit. Well let me tell you something about that. The rich create jobs in this country. Not the poor and not the government unless you become a government employee. The rich are suffering in this economic downturn just like the rest of us and to have someone dupe you out of the money you earned no matter how much is simply wrong.

But is Madoff the biggest fraud going? Not by far. Our government now runs the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world. It is called Social Security. And the numbers are staggering. You would not believe the amount of money that has disappeared from the government's books when it comes to this "fund".

Lets start with a little history. FDR, the wonderful president of the Great Depression, set up this fund to help people with retirement. It was anticipated that people would pay the government over their working life and upon retirement, that same government would give you back your money in small amounts for the rest of your life.

There are a number of problems with this and these problems were built into the system from the beginning. This ensured that at some point in the future, the whole plan would fall apart. The question is, how much will the demise of this system damage our nation and government? If the Madoff issue is any indication, we could expect our government to go bankrupt. No Joke! What does a bankrupt Federal Government mean for you and me? Loss of our freedom, liberty and maybe even our Constitution and with that our nation and way of life.

The first person to receive Social Security retirement benefits was one Ida May Fuller of Vermont. She began receiving benefits in January 1940 after reaching 65 years of age in the year of 1939. Miss Fuller contributed under $25 dollars to the system. So by all accounts, how the system was said to have worked, she should have gotten no more than that $25 dollars.

At least that is what a logical and sane person would believe. In reality what Miss Fuller got was well over $22,000 dollars. Granted being of sturdy and stout New England stock, Miss Fuller lived to the ripe old age of 100. However, notice how she collected 1000 times more than she put in. How can this be?

How does this factor in to the modern times of today? Well at one point there were over 20 working people supporting 1 retiree on Social Security. The way our nation is aging, it is predicted that number will shrink to as few as 3 working people supporting 1 retiree. Now in order to do that, you must be taxed more. But how can this be if the money you are putting into the system is YOUR money?

It is not your money. In fact, if you actually were to view the books of the Social Security fund, you would see a big fat zero. Where has all that money gone? It has gone into the general fund to reduce the deficit and to pay current retirees and other recipients getting Social Security benefits.

At some point, there will be not enough people to support such a massive payout. This is how Ponzi schemes fall apart. At some point there is no more money that can come in. So the people who get in later cannot get what they put into the plan. The same with Social Security. Your financial liberty and indeed, our nations' freedom is at risk here.

Yet at every turn, Congress has blocked any and all attempts to "fix" this eventual problem. If you think the current bail out is expensive, just wait until Social Security needs a bail out. I would suggest that anyone under the age of 50 not expect to get a single dime of Social Security money. View it as a tax and that money is gone forever. You mush take care of your own needs in retirement.

In order to be free, in order to have liberty, you cannot have any part of your life dependent on government. It is not governments responsibility to take care you or me. Otherwise, you risk losing all of your freedom. And, America, unless there is a change in this massive Ponzi scheme, you and I will lose what ever freedom and liberty we currently have and enjoy.

Some further reading for you:

The Deal.com

How Stuff Works

International Society for Individual Liberty

EHow.com