CA Lawyer to Challenge Obama on Every Action, American Thinker: “Birth Certificate Issue is Legitimate”
Hat tip to Mainemom for bringing the WND article to my attention…
From the folks at WorldNetDaily, Gary Kreep, chief counsel of Keyes v. Bowen and chief of the United States Justice Foundation, is reportedly going to continuously challenge Barack Obama on his citizenship issue well past inauguration on “every order, every proposal, every piece of paperwork” the to-be President produces. theobamafile.com is covering this story, as is Dr. Taitz’ blog.
Also in this post, the American Thinker, a highly-acclaimed conservative blog that has been mentioned several times on the Rush Limbaugh program, raises the pertinent questions of, “why not go after the birth certificate issue?”…
Excerpts from the WND article:
“We will file lawsuits on his actions, every time. As long as we have money , we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status,” Gary Kreep, chief of the United States Justice Foundation, told WND today.
“We’re already talking to groups who are willing to be plaintiffs,” he said. …
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn’t 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, while a video posted on YouTube features Obama’s Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya. …
“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, Petitioners, as well as other 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,” the action challenges.
Kreep told WND today he’s now working with several groups that could serve as plaintiffs to challenge Obama’s actions, even from the Oval Office, should the issue remain in dispute.
“There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process,” the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.
The issue is much more important than a single candidate, said Judge Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and a WND columnist. He now runs the Foundation for Moral Law.
Moore had his own constitutional confrontation when he was removed from his position Alabama Supreme Court chief justice after he refused to remove from state grounds a monument recognizing the Ten Commandments as the foundation for U.S. law.
“We can survive four years of any president; we cannot survive without a Constitution,” he told WND. “This calls for a major investigation. Our Constitution is at stake.”
Moore said the requirement for a president to be a natural-born citizen is clear in the Constitution. The document, he added, provides procedures to amend the requirement, but that hasn’t been done.
“We live under the rule of law,” he warned, “If we start ignoring that. …”
A WND reader agreed in a letter to the editor.
“If Obama is allowed to take office without proving his citizenship, then we have no Constitution. America as it’s been will be dead. If an easy to understand rule is ignored, then the others harder to understand will be easy to ignore,” wrote Tony Costello.
Moore said, “If a person is not qualified, he’s not qualified. It doesn’t matter who it is, Republican, Democrat, black or white, rich or poor.”
He added the members of the Electoral College have an obligation to verify Obama’s qualifications before voting for him.
But he said the dispute may end up with court action, too.
“The courts are there to uphold the law. People have a right to change the Constitution. But until then it’s the rule of law,” he said.
“I don’t see any reason a candidate who has such a serious question would not come forward with the truth about where he was born,” Moore said.
“The Supreme Court has to answer this. They have to do it by law and not by the popularity of a person. If we do that, we might as well throw the Constitution out the window,” Moore said.
“[Obama] has the answer. He knows where he was born. If he tells something that’s untrue that’s another matter. It’s not an Obama issue, it’s an American issue. It’s about the Constitution of the United States.”
U.S. State Department officials declined to respond to WND inquiries about the process for keeping a U.S. citizenship while attending schools in Indonesia, or the possibility of a U.S. citizen keeping that status while traveling on another nation’s passport. …
On WND’s new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:
“What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?” asked one reader. “Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself … Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?”
Other comments included:
- “Obama won his first election ever by getting three Democratic opponents thrown off the ballot? He’s all for using the law to help himself win. Wouldn’t it be ironic if he is not allowed to serve as president due to the law? … Turn around is fair play!
- “Even the left-wing liberal news media is beginning to ask the question: ‘Who is this man we have elected? We really do not know much about him.’”
- “Obama’s refusal to produce the ORIGINAL given birth certificate gives us all pause. His silence on these allegations is deafening. The anointed one believes that if he can hold us all back until he’s in the Oval Office he’s hit a home run and he’s ’safe.’ Ah, not so! Check your law, Obama, and you will see that even if were to make it to the White House you will no longer be able to hide behind those red velvet ropes.”
- “There must be something that would have caused him great harm prior to the election, and would have stopped him from becoming elected. What could that little piece of information be?”
Excerpts from the American Thinker article:
Does this Barack Obama birth certificate issue bug you because, although improbable, it’spossible 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 Factcheck.org, 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 1.F. 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?
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.
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.” …
The question not being asked by the holders of power, who dismiss this as a rightwing 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.
If Barack Obama II showed the definitive proof that his father is Barack Obama I, it would demonstrate the legal necessity to prevent him from being U.S. President — or, if inaugurated, to disqualify him.
It is the trigger.
Just because you don’t see it, that doesn’t mean anything is hidden from you.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=
You people should use your energy to help the poor and disadvantaged around you. It is so amazing how too often the most wicked and racist also claim to be religious. Anyone close to God is full of love compassion and wisdom. The fruit of the devil is racism, hate and war mongering. The fruit of Jesus is charity. Grow up and learn to spend just a few minutes everyday seeking friendship with God. Ask God to cleanse you of wickedness and to let you see what it is that is good about Obama. At at a time when Obama was spending time helping the poor in Chicago, what were you doing? Hating gay people? When this man Obama was studying for law a degree in Havard, what were you doing? Running around in a white sheet? Repent and grow up!!!!
Listen, the issue here may not be where he was born, but there is certainly something that is being hidden here. Whatever the issue, we the people have a right to know. Contact your electors and congress people and get them to act! Let’s hope for the sake of our country that we are wrong.
[...] CA Lawyer to Challenge Obama on Every Action, American Thinker: “Birth … … questions of, “why not go after the birth certificate issue?â€â€¦ Excerpts from the WND article: “We will file lawsuits on his actions, every time. As long as we have money , we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status,†Gary Kreep, chief of the United States Justice … [...]
глÑди! Я ржал – http://ibigdan.livejournal.com/4243319.html – тема днÑ
)
Фото на тему кризиÑа..
да, и ÑпаÑибо за поÑÑ‚) добавил в избранное
[...] CA Lawyer to Challenge Obama on Every Action, American Thinker … “Even the left-wing liberal news media is beginning to ask the question: ‘Who is this man we have elected? We really do not know much about him.’†“Obama’s refusal to produce the ORIGINAL given birth certificate gives us all pause. … [...]
[...] CA Lawyer to Challenge Obama on Every Action, American Thinker … Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born, while a video posted on YouTube features Obama’s Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya. … [...]
[...] CA Lawyer to Challenge Obama on Every Action, American Thinker: “Birth Certificate Issue is Legitimate†via The Right Side of Life http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1199 [...]
Donofrio contends the constitution says POTUS must be a natural born citizen, meaning born on US soil to two US parents. If this is upheld, McCain falls under the same ruling.
Obama, even if it were proven he was born in Hawaii, because his father was born in Kenya, having been born with split and competing loyalties, is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution.â€
Article II of the Constitution is the only place Natural Born Citizen is addressed (eligibility for president), and the framers added a grandfather clause. It states a “Natural Born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of this Consitution.â€
The Framers make a distinction between Natural Born Citizen and citizen, and clearly added the clause since they were born on U.S. soil but were British subjects at birth (thus, NOT Natural Born Citizens). The interpretation of Article II (by Donofrio and others) is that the Framers clearly intended that a Natural Born Citizen must be born on U.S. soil and have no encumbrances on their citizenship. In other words, both parents must at least be citizens.
The 14th Amendment provides situations where a person can become a Citizen, by statute – such as when an illegal alien gives birth to a child in the U.S. But this child would NOT be a Natural Born Citizen as provided in Article II.
The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens†who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birthâ€. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.
Look, Obama has to be a Natural Born citizen of some country, it is just a matter of figuring out which country. Natural Born status can only flow from your parent and to you so since Obama has one United Kingdom, U.K., Kenya parent, (father), and one United States, U.S. parent, (mother), he has to have either U.K. or U.S. Natural Born status.
.
In 1961 U.K. Natural Born status flowed only from the father.
“The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act _shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”
.
In 1961 U.S. Natural Born status could flow from a single parent but they had
to meet the U.S. residency requirements of living in the U.S. for at least 10 years, at least 5 years of which had to be after the age of 16. Obama’s mother would of had to of been at least 21 years old when she gave birth to BHO for her to pass-on Natural Born status. Obama’s mother was only 18 years old when Obama was born, therefore she was unable to pass-on Natural Born status to him because when you add the required 5 years after age 16, you get 21 years old. Since Obama’s mother was legally unable pass-on Natural Born status to him, the only Natural Born status which remains is that which flowed to him from his U.K. father. Obama may or may not be a citizen of many other countries but he appears to only legally carry U.K. Natural Born status.
.
So you are correct in that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, but unfortunately it only applies to his Natural Born U.K. Citizenship and not a Natural Born U.S. Citizenship. Anyone who wants to be a President of the U.S. must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE U.S.. Obama may carry many types of citizenships, maybe even U.S. but went he admitted on the record that he was born with U.K. citizenship, he literary admitted that he lacked NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZENSHIP STATUS.
Hawaii officials may have used a play on words. An “original” could be an original certificate of live birth, instead of a birth certificate. Fukino did not specify which it was.
“HAWAIIAN OFFICIALS ARE GUILTY OF COMPLICITY!”???
How about the Hawaii legislature guilty of conspiracy!!! They declared him born on Hawaiian soil, without producing proof. (Only 27% of Hawaiians voted for McCain.)
A Dr. Bradley, forensic psychologist, filed a lawsuit in October accusing Ann Dunham (deceased) of twice giving birth outside the country and flying back to fraudulently file certificates of live birth in Hawaii. Maya Soetero claims “born” citizenship, but her mother would have had to “bi locate” ( be in two places at once) in order to make that happen.
HAWAIIAN OFFICIALS ARER GUILTY OF COMPLICITY!
Hawaiian Officials who have stated (In effect):”We have seen and verified an original Birth Certificate for Barack Obama is on file with the Hawaiian Department of Health”, are GUILTY of COMPLICITY, and ‘abetting’ a criminal, for not prosecuting Barack Obama for FORGING a “Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth” stating Barack Obama was born in Hawaii! They know for fact that Barack Obama was not “born in Hawaii, because they have “seen” and know the “original Birth Certificate does not say”Hawaii”! Or they would have:
SHOUTED IT TO THE WORLD!
And then, they would have built a monument in front of the (’TWO’?) HOSPITAL(S) HE WAS BORN IN”!
Landstander,
There is a lot of ignorance out in the media (and some in the media say there’s a lot of ignorance here in the blogosphere; go figure).
Then again, I’m sure most folks at the WSJ — as great, in general, as a paper it has been — have never read the US Constitution.
-Phil
I’m really surprised that article came from the WSJ.
The biggest reason is: it’s factually wrong.
Denofrio has standing, none of the lower courts dismissed the case on those grounds.
SCOTUS must consider the case based on NJ’s laws where he has have standing.
Frankly I like Donofrio’s chances better. Berg needs to overcome standing, Donofrio does not. Berg needs the judges to be willing to consider lack of evidence as evidence, Donofrio needs them to consider a constitutional argument (that’s pretty sound). Finally, Berg’s case would have to be referred back to a lower court for evidence to be subpoenaed and arguments heard (this could take a long time. Donofrio just needs them to consider the wording of the Constitution which makes SCOTUS the last word on the case.
If I were a SCJ and considered Obama to be inelligible 14 different ways, and wanted to end the flood of lawsuits, this is the case I would rule on. It’s the clearest argument based on evidence in fact, and can be explained clearly in a ruling even the general public can understand.
Marvin Baker,
Mr. Kreep can theoretically do whatever he wishes. It would not stop legislation from becoming law unless a judge ruled that such legislation is “stayed” from execution (basically saying, “the President cannot enact legislation until after this is over with”).
That is a highly unlikely scenario.
We’ll have to see what happens next week. Big decisions.
-Phil
I respect Atty. Kreep as a man of conviction , and guts as well as perseverance and would like to ask a brief question….If you challenge each and every action the he signs as President what effect does that have on the legislation…..can the action go forward…monies appropriated and so forth until the action is adjudicated….or is that piece of legislation dead in the water until adjudication……if this is the case we can stop the Government cold. I wish you luck in the sensible case you have with Alan Keyes. Don’t give up…we must never give up…we must stand up for the Constitution and not be pushed around or intimidated….To tell you the truth he hasn’t even got a chance to beat us….we will never let up….never. Thank You sir for the good you are doing.
Just to add, I’ve been a reader of the WSJ for 30 years.
I cancelled my WSJ subscription today.
Regardless of what the Obamabots want to believe, Obama’s legal problems are just growing.
On a side issue, I was dismayed to see the WSJ columnist James Taranto (Best of the Web – Natural Born Baloney) apparently flip into the Obama sycophant camp:
“One Leo Denofrio has a pending petition for certiorari in a similar case that was dismissed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. His prospects for success are approximately equal to Berg’s, for the same reasons [lack of standing]. We devoutly hope this is the last item we will ever have to write on this silly topic.”