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.

Supreme Court Gets This One Right

The Supreme Court yesterday decided that showing a government issued ID card in order to vote did not put an undue obstacle in front of poor, elderly and handicapped people. The judgment came down due to an Indian law that would require such identification in order to cast a vote.

Liberals and most Democrats have long been apposed to such a measure saying that minorities and the poor will be disenfranchised if such laws went into affect.

Now you have to ask yourself, how is it that showing an ID, or even obtaining one is far beyond the reach of every single American? It is not. It is a sham.

Lets face it, you must show a picture ID before you can do just about anything anywhere. Including renting furniture and big screen TV's at places like Rent-a-Center. If the poor can show their ID in order to get a sofa, then I am sure they can show an ID to vote.

Many states charge a very minimal fee for a photo ID. Most are under $20 bucks and they are good for up to 5 years. So the cost cannot be a factor at all. And if a person is so destitute as to not be able to afford the $20 every 5 years, then I am sure there are groups out there that could pitch in and make sure they got the ID they needed.

What this does is eliminate a huge area of voter fraud. Now of course, you will hear the Liberals say this is a cure for which there is no ill. They are always the first ones to shout voter fraud when they lose close elections. Hanging chad anyone?

We also know that other elections have had massive fraud in them. Just because nobody big has been caught and convicted of doing such a deed does not mean it is not happening. The point is that lack of voter identification aids the Democrat party and they know it.

We know for a fact that there have been dead people who have voted mostly for Democrats. We know for a fact that some elderly and homeless people have voted in more than one voting district in the same election and those votes went heavily to the Democrat.

What the Liberals do not want is honesty and fairness. They know they will lose almost every time when it comes down to truth, honesty, integrity and ideas. This is why they often have to resort to cheating and using the courts to get their agendas passed.

I do not know an ordinary American who would be opposed to showing their drivers license or other state picture ID in order to cast their vote. In fact most would be happy to do so knowing that they are helping to eliminate fraud in the system.

Is this a perfect solution? Of course not. Is it simple and cheap and effective? Yes. My God, something that is simple, cheap and effective coming from the government? We should all embrace it.

This does not give credence to the need for a national or Federal ID card. I am against such a measure besides we already have the Social Security Card. What more of a nation ID to you need than that?

Showing a picture ID will help to make sure that legal citizens of our great nation have a true voice when casting their vote. There is nothing more disenfranchising then to have dead people vote, to have homeless and the elderly vote more than once in the same election, to have mentally disabled people vote.

Showing an ID to vote, as with anything else, just makes sense. And if it makes sense and Liberals hate the idea, then most likely it is the right thing to do.

Stop! Think! Vote!

Supreme Court Trashes Constitution

The government is now free to break its own laws and you get to suffer for it. No this is not some lame conspiracy theory, this is now Supreme Court fact.

It now seems that the government can arrest you, and search you and your possessions even if that arrest was illegal. Let me tell you how bad this is and will be.

I will be very simplistic here so don't get yourself all in a twist because of what I use for an example. Read the greater moral of this tale.

Lets say you are jay-walking. Yes I said jay-walking. Many of you may not know what jay-walking is. It is when you cross the street at other than a crosswalk or corner. All major cities have jay-walking laws on the books although very few people are ever issued a ticket for doing such a thing.

This kind of law was instituted to help protect pedestrians and car drivers when the auto was first coming into its own. Jay-walking is a ticket and a fine. Nothing more than that.

Now lets say a police officer decides he is going to arrest you. Jay-walking is not an arrestable offense but the officer puts you in handcuffs. Now that arrest really is not legal in his state because it is a ticket offense not an arrest offense.

This cop now has the authority to fully search you and your belongings. If you jay-walk from your car, he can now search your car. What is worse is that any evidence that he gathers during this illegal arrest can be used against you in a court of law and any conviction that comes from it will stand.

Now you might be saying this is against the fourth Amendment to the Constitution and you would be right. In fact some of our Supreme Court Justices seemed to think this may be the case but they voted to allow such a thing to take place.

This full story came from Yahoo! News. It is very disturbing indeed. It now puts us on the path to an official police state. I am sure this is something that will get very little play in the media but every citizen should take note of this story.

You and your family are now in danger of being arrested for offenses that are not arrestable simply because now the police have free reign over you to do what they want. They can conduct and illegal arrest and still convict you on evidence that is illegally gathered.

This is a direct attack on your freedom and liberty. And yes, sad to say, the Bush Administration was fully behind in defending the state on their illegal arrest and search and conviction. What is next allowing illegally gathered evidence in a lawful arrest because the police were only after the truth?

Even though the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, this cannot stand. It looks like we may have to enact laws that prevent the state from doing what the Constitution says it can't do in the first place. How sad. And our liberty and freedom suffers for it.

No More Reagans and Its McCains Fault

There is the fascination with one of our presidents. I an not talking about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or even John F Kennedy. I am talking about Ronald Reagan. The great communicator. There is a healthy and unhealthy fascination with this former president. In fact, Reagan is quickly becoming an American legend much like JFK.

The difference is that Reagan actually lived out his full term as president where JFK had his term cut short by a few bullets form assassins rifles. (Yes I said assassins as in plural. But that is a topic for another post at another time.) We got to see Reagan perform through out his presidency so there is no speculation as to what he would have done. We know what he did. We know what he tried to do.

The fascination comes because Republicans, I should say true conservative Republicans, are looking for a new Ronald Reagan. That is not to say they are looking for a clone. We all know Reagan was a once in a lifetime person. He had character that cannot be duplicated. What conservatives are looking for is someone who has the same ideals and beliefs that Reagan held. Someone who has those basic core principles of true conservatives that can break the ranks and lead out in the open.

But conservatives lament the fact that even though there are many who would qualify, they will not take the torch and run with it all the way to the White House. In fact many of them won't even take the torch to Governors Mansions in their own states. They wont run that torch to the State Houses of their home states. They even shy away from bringing that torch to their mayors offices or city or town councils.

Why is this. Ann Coulter made a point in her column “How to keep Reagan out of office.” There is a link to this column below. She correctly identified the major reasons why a Reagan like candidate is so hard to find. We can thank our heir apparent for the Republican side for that.

McCain/Fiengold but a big cab bash on free speech in this country. What it has done is made it nearly impossible for an upstart to make a serious run for any major public office. It severely reduces the ability of candidates who have not been in the seats of power already to raise capitol to run against incumbents at nearly all levels of government.

We know it takes millions of dollars to launch a state or federal campaign for office. But unless you are a self made millionaire or billionaire, you have no chance at raising money to battle the entrenched machine of the incumbent. Even if there is a vacated seat, you still must have the cash in order to fend off the well financed and well place candidate from the other party.

You have to have a name first. Well the best way to make a name for oneself is to run for office at lower levels of government and work your way up. But wait, you can't just run for an office of worth. You have to grab the attention of your local or state party. Then they have to be willing to back you. But it takes time because of the limits placed on us by campaign finance reform. This leaves the job of bringing those with promise out into the open to the press.

The media has more power than ever in deciding who our candidates are going to be because of the new laws on the books. These laws make it very hard for an individual to promote any candidate. But if they are a part of the so-called legitimate press and media, then they can talk up or talk down anybody they want as often as they want.

That is how we got McCain as our candidate of choice instead of a true Reaganite. There are only two ways to stop this. One is since we have the Internet, we can spread the news of promising people and get them to run for office and support them. Ron Paul has proven this type of support can be had. This type of grass roots can be done. Although Ron Paul was not the conservative choice, he did prove that a new conservative Reagan could garner a strong base of support in a short period of time. Plus, because of the Internet, each and everyone of us could in fact become a part of the media by launching on line publications with news and commentary. In short, each of us can become our own media business thus nullifying the McCain/Fiengold bill.

Second, and best of all, is to stick to the letter and spirit of the constitution of these United States and have this stupid law repealed and pass a law that would prevent future laws of this ilk from being passed ever again.

The people of this nation, with the Internet, opportunity to grab their country back. We have the ability to effect change at the grass roots level by circumventing the current process. We have the ability to show that the main stream media does not have a monopoly on news of the day nor do they get to chose who we, as Americans, have as choices for high or low public office.

It is time we take back our elections process from the incumbents, the major media (which has a very liberal bias) and others in power who wish to limit your choice and access. I say each and every one of you should start your own media company on line and begin to broadcast the truth. And that will bring out the talent that we need to turn our country around and bring back our Constitution as our Founding Fathers wrote it.

Read more here:

Ann Coulter