Keyes v. Bowen: Subpoena Issued for President-Elect’s Occidental College Records; WND Update
Yesterday, the ObamaDailyWaffles blog reported the law office of Gary Kreep, lead attorney in Keyes v. Bowen, requested, on January 15, the President-Elect’s collegiate records (see the PDF here).
According to the subpoena:
3. The records to be produced are described as follows: Academic and housing records of Barack Hussein Obama, including but not limited to approximately two years from September 1979 to June 1981
Unless an objection is made by the Defendants (as prescribed within the subpoena paperwork), these records are supposed to be produced on February 16, 2009 at 10:00am to Mr. Kreep’s office in California.
Since this is a deposition subpoena, my non-attorney opinion is that Mr. Kreep’s office is in the process of aggregating as much data as they can to continue forward with their lawsuit in California.
Update: WorldNetDaily also covered this story:
Officials at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Calif., have been served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national – in one of three fronts now established by those contesting the president-elect’s constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office.
The Supreme Court and Congress also both are being challenged to address the worries that Obama doesn’t meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution that the president be a “natural born” citizen. …
“If Obama is sworn in as president, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as president because he is ‘not qualified,’” said Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who has brought several cases to court. Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, indicated the issue isn’t going away.
Orly Taitz, a California lawyer whose dispute remains pending before the high court, agreed, noting that one of the hearings already is scheduled for the days following Obama’s inaugural on Tuesday.
Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of that ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35.
In one of the latest developments, Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation petitioned Occidental College with a demand for its records concerning Obama.
“The gravamen of the petition is the question as to whether United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama, of Illinois, is eligible to serve as president of the United States pursuant to the requirements for that office in the Untied States Constitution,” he wrote. “The records sought may providedocumentary evidence, and/or admissions by said defendant, as to said eligibility or lack thereof.”
College officials confirmed they had gotten the notice, but had not decided how to respond, a decision that may be removed from their hands because of the team of lawyers Obama has engaged to prevent such inquiries into his past.
“Senator Obama has filed responsive pleadings in this matter and is represented by counsel, and has the opportunity to object to this production, should he so desire,” the affidavit from Kreep said.
“Good cause exists for this production under Subpoena Duces Tecum, in that testimony will be elicited from the original records obtained through the witness named herein, and there is no other process available to secure said testimony,” he wrote. …
Taitz took a different route, submitting to the U.S. Supreme Court a motion “to declare that by default, the president elect respondent Barack Obama has failed to qualify under [the] U.S. Constitution.”
“Does the burden of proof lie with the petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/president elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR does the [Constitution] place the burden of proof on the president-elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the president elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?”
Not only has the respondent, Obama, “failed to submit proofs … for any of the qualifications,” she wrote. “Respondent has hindered discovery.”
She argued that having Obama declared ineligible until he would provide documentation would “cause far less political trauma” than allowing his inauguration because it would uphold the constitution.
She also raised the issue of the concealment of Obama’s records.
“Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form ‘vault’ birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted,” she said. “Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.”
Her letter included a warning, too.
“Thirty-three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections,” she said. “Petitioner humbly prays this Court evaluate the Petitioner’s case in context of how best to enforce restrictive qualifications for president to preserve the Constitution and Republic from tyranny.”
-Phil
The whole argument falls to the bottom line: If there’s nothing to hide, why is he hiding it?
We are ruled (Michelle’s word, not mine) by a fraud, a usurper, a foriegner. That never ends well. Check your history.
Patrick,
I too have researched this statement in the past and found that US citizens could travel to Pakistan in the 1980’s, but that is wasn’t recommended.
However, ‘rumor’ (rumor probably isn’t the best word–more towards fact) appears that Obama did not have a US passport prior to 2004/2006. Obama was clearly in Pakistan, as witnessed by friends, in the 1980’s. The question is how an adult US citizen travels out of the country to Indonesia and Pakistan without a US passport? Further, how did Obama travel to Indonesia in 1990/1991 with his wife without a US passport?
Can anyone cite an objective authoritative source for this travel ban? The State Department issued a travel advisory, but to date no one has come up with a travel ban. If one had been issued, it should be easy enough to obtain through FOIA. Certainly all the legal eagles bringing these suits have pursued that, right? You should be urging them to post a copy on the internet or, at the least, to cite the State Department Announcement Number that was in effect in 1981. Why are you passively accepting this assertion when real, authenticated, authoritative evidence is available? It will have to be produced to a court of law, so get hopping.
In 1981 the United States agreed to a sizeable military aid package to Pakistan, and in that year Pakistan placed two orders for F-16s, totaling forty jets. Also, the USAID was active in that country.
That school record of Obama’s when he lived in Indonesia also identified Obama aka Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen. And isn’t that food for thought.
Jamie… I can see you’re a product of the “No Child Left Behind” educational system. That and far too much koolaid in your diet.
The military coup resulted in a ban on Pakistanis’ freedom to travel, but I’ve yet to see a citation to any authority that banned Americans from entering the country. The United States sold military equipment, including jet fighters, to Pakistan during that period, suggesting it was highly unlikely that Pakistan would have wanted to estrange Americans. If you can point to an authoritative source for the travel ban, we would appreciate it.
As for the school attendance issue, again, I’ve looked but never been able to find a source for the contention that Indonesia restricted education to citizens. From the 1960s there has been a vibrant expat community in Jakarta. Would appreciate a citation particularly to the appropriate Indonesian statute, that prohibits access to education.
Obama frightens me as to what he and his has been cabinet will do to this country,along with the worst Congress I can remember. WHY IS HE SO SECRETIVE ABOUT HIS RECORDS??? There has to be something he has that will not support his transparency and the right to be President. Why does the news media support him so vigorously?? Obama can do no wrong and everything he says is gospel according to news media. AS I HAVE HEARD NEWS PROGRAMS SAY, AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ALL FOR OBAMA AS A NEW BEGINNING. Look at his few records as a Senator, WHAT DID HE DO????
As for racism, I have not seen or heard one black person who is not for Obama. They surely cannot be in love with him for his record, but this is only racism. I do not tolerate racism, but we sure have it from the black side.
People responsible for the desecration of the FLAG ought to be prosecuted. WHY ARE AMERICAN LAWS BEING SO DISREGARDED TODAY????
GOD HELP THE REAL AMERICANS.
Visiting does not equal resident in a country. From 1971 on, Obama’s residence was in the US. For that matter, his mother was in Hawaii from 1972 to 1977 as well. So even if he did go back to visit, he never went back to live (i.e. establish residence)
Oh, and BTW. You know that Indonesian school record? The one that is used as proof of an adoption, that he was Muslim, etc.? That also gives his birthplace as Honolulu. Food for thought.
What legal errors are you talking about??
Indonesian law at the time states that an adopted child under the age of 21 can be granted citizenship PROVIDED that the granting of citizenship does not cause dual citizenship. That’s the only age requirement there.
You are right in that an adult can give up their US citizenship. However, we are not talking about an adult. By the time Obama was 19, he had lived in the United States for 9 years and his mother had divorced Lolo Soetoro. Since he couldn’t give up his US citizenship until 18 at the earliest under US law, you’re assuming he gave up his US citizenship, and his mothers soon-to-be ex husband then arranged for him to get Indonesian citizenship, even though he hadn’t lived in Indonesia since 1971 and was both resident AND going to college in the United States. Because that’s the only way he could have gotten Indonesian citizenship and an Indonesian passport, (and there’s no evidence he ever had anything other than a US passport)
Before 18, US law states that a minor US citizen cannot loose US citizenship, nor can an action of a parent take it away either. To cite the portions of the US Nationality Act of 1940.
“(Section 401): ‘A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: (a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States:…..’ “
So that says that if his mother had taken Indonesian citizenship, (the Soetoro-Dunham divorce papers cite US citizenship and they were filed in the US), then Obama would have lost his US citizenship IF he stayed in Indonesia past the age of 23.
“(Section 407):
‘A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States.’“
Same thing here. And bear in mind that again, according to Indonesian law, Lolo Soetoro couldn’t have gotten Obama Indonesian citizenship unless Obama renounced his US citizenship AS AN adult between the ages of 18 and 21 – even if Obama had stayed in Indonesia instead of coming back at the age of ten.
The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, amended the 1940 Nationality Act.
(Section 349a):
“From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by — (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ….”
Here you see the age according to US law has gone up to 25.
(Section 355) :
‘A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.”
Since he came back from Indonesia at ten and established residence in the US, those elements don’t apply either.
Bottom line. The only way Obama could have lost US citizenship is as an adult, not as a child. And it would not have been easy for him to gain Indonesian citizenship as an adult – his mother was no longer married to Lolo Soetoro and he wasn’t resident in Indonesia since 1971.
I think a very important question to ask is how long is an Indonesian passport good for? US passports are good for what 10 years.
Lets look at it this way. Obama would have had to have a passport issued to him as an infant/child to get out of the country with his mother to go live in Indonesia correct? Where are the records of a US passport issued to him at this age? This goes under the theory that he was born in Hawaii, USA. If he were not born here he would not be required a US passport to travel but a passport from the country he was born in. i.e. Kenya/Britian, as Kenya was under British rule at that time.
To get in this country at age 10 he would have had a passport. What did he come into this country with? A US passport or an Idonesian one or a British one?
To travel outside the US he would have been required to use a passport, which one did he use? US, Kenay(as Kenya had declared it soverinty from British by then), British (if he was born in Kenya under British rule, he would/could still have British citizenship at that time), or Indonesian?
Also, if he were not born in the USA to begin with as things may suggest, then the laws of the USA do not apply with him or any type of adoption.
But I think a good avenue to follow is the passport issue. That alone could answer so many questions…but he has had those sealed also.
Obama is known to have visited his mother in Indonesia after he went (back) to Hawaii for school, so it is not true as you say that he was not in Indonesia after the age of 10. Do you have any idea what it is like to ‘do business’ in a third world country? Money talks. You are also completely ignoring the FACT that Obama was a British citizen at birth. The cases which explored a child’s natural born citizen status after parents have renounced US citizenship do not involved adoption and do not apply to Obama. You are also assuming that Obama is a US citizen by virtue of being born on US soil which has NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED with the COLB that has been presented as ‘evidence’.
Obama is still ineligible for the Office of the Presidency based on the fact that his father was Kenyan born and therefore, Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” of USA. Even if he was born in USA he is only a “US Citizen” BUT NOT “Natural Born Citizen”.
You make too many legal errors to address them all but, without offering a legal treatise, let me point out a material fact missing from your analysis, critical to the outcome. At what age was the child adopted by the Indonesian national? Also, within the laws you cite, residency is not the only factor that determines whether the adult child holds onto U.S. citizenship; certain overt acts manifest a rejection of claims to U.S. citizenship, such as participating in political events in another country; or using another country’s passport.
Again, the New York Times article of 14 June 1981 only said US Citizens needed a visa that they could get “at border crossings and airports”. Since Pakistan was an ally at the time, again, no evidence of a travel ban by either Pakistan or the US.
As for the Indonesian citizenship claim, there’s no way that Lolo Soetoro could have gotten Indonesian citizen for Barack Obama as a minor without violating US and/or Indonesian laws.
You see, under US law, (US Nationality Act of 1940, Sections 401 and 407, and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Section 349(a) and 355), there is no way a minor can give up their US citizenship, nor is there anything a parent can do to remove it either. If the US citizen living overseas fails to repatriate or establish a US residence by their 23rd birthday, (25th after 1952), then they are considered to have given up their US citizenship. But such an action cannot take place while the US citizen is still a minor.
So, according to US law, there’s no way Barack Obama could have lost his US citizenship as a minor, and would have only lost it if his mother renounced her citizenship AND he lived outside the United States until after his 25th birthday.
Which leads into the other side of this, Indonesian law, The law in question is # 62/1958, passed on 29 July 1958. It’s interesting in that it’s based on jus sanguinis or parentage, rather than the US jus soli, place of birth. It does not recognize dual citizenship or no citizenship. It was in effect until 2006.
Indonesian citizenship is given to:
A child born of the marriage of an Indonesian couple;
A child born of the marriage of an Indonesian man and foreign woman — the status of which does not cause dual citizenship;
A child born of the marriage of a foreign man and Indonesian woman, both of whom request Indonesian citizenship for their child — the status of which does not cause dual citizenship;
A child born to an unmarried Indonesian woman, the status of which does not cause dual citizenship;
A child born in Indonesian territory that is not provided with citizenship by his or her parents;
A child born in Indonesian territory whose parents are unknown;
A child born in Indonesian territory whose parents have no citizenship.
In addition, it states that:
An infant whose father is a foreign citizen and mother is an Indonesian can obtain Indonesian citizenship if it is the wish of their parents. This citizenship, however, must not cause dual citizenship.
A child born overseas to an Indonesian couple can be an Indonesian citizen at the request of their parents. A request for citizenship must be submitted to the Indonesian embassy no later than three months after the child’s birth, the draft revision says.
A foreign child aged below 21 and unmarried, who is adopted by an Indonesian, will be eligible for Indonesian citizenship if the process does not cause dual citizenship.
Foreigners who contribute to Indonesia — or for a specific reason — can be granted Indonesian citizenship by the President with the consent of the House of Representatives.
Note the part I bolded: “if the process does not cause dual citizenship”. In othe words, an adoptive child would only gain Indonesian citizenship if the process does not cause dual citizenship.
And, according to US law at the time, there is no way for a minor to renounce his or her citizenship before their 21st birthday.
In addition, an Indonesian citizen can lose their nationality if they live overseas for a consecutive period of five years without declaring their will to remain an Indonesian national. Barack Obama lived in Indonesia from 1967 (six years old) to 1971 (ten years old), and then lived in the United States from that point forward.
Which means there is no way Lolo Soetoro could have ever legally had Indonesian citizenship granted to Barack Obama even if he DID adopt him. Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Dunham divorced in 1980 according to papers filed in Hawaii. Barack Obama would have been 19 at that point, and had lived outside of Indonesia for 9 years. Meaning by the point Obama could theoretically renounce his US citizenship, there was no way he could have gained Indonesian citizenship because his mother’s marriage to Lolo Soetoro was null and void.
Bottom line. Neither Barack Obama or his mother could renounce his US citizenship while still a minor, due to US law. Lolo Soetoro, even if he did adopt Barack Obama, could not have arranged for Indonesian citizenship for him without violating Indonesian law. And by the point Obama was old enough to legally renounce his US citizenship if he wanted to, he had lived in the US for over 10 years and his mother and Lolo Soetoro were divorced.
So not only has there never been any credible proof of Indonesian citizenship, (and remember, that school record *also* says he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii), but there’s no way he could have ever been given Indonesian citizenship though Lolo Soetoro without violating Indonesian law.
I am not certain, but I recall that in 1981 the US did not ban travel by its citizens in Pakistan, but rather Pakistan which had undergone a military coup placed a ban on US citizens entering Pakistan. Consequently the assumption is that Barack Hussein Obama (Barry Soetero) entered Pakistan on an Indonesian passport which he would have obtained as a child adopted/declared by his Indonesian step-father in order to attend school in Indonesia which was open only to Indonesian citizens.
2burmdad,
Even though I am clearly biased, I, too, wonder what’s to be gained by issuing an injunction against the CA SOS. I know that Amb. Dr. Alan Keyes is an intelligent individual, though he is no lawyer (as far as I know), so I have to wonder what the strategy is.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
The reality that the CA courts have before them is that the action in Keyes vs Bowen has, since the November 2008 filing date, become moot.
The action was to deny the SOS from certifying the electoral college vote. Lacking an injunction against her, she certified, and the votes were counted in the joint session of Congress and the electors.
On Tuesday, January 20, the final step of BHO becoming President will be effected in the swearing-in. At that time, all “remedies” appear to be only by Congress effecting an Impeachment. The House acts as the “trial court”, and the Senate as the “jury”. Presumably, they have subpeona power.
Now that Keys v. Bowen has become moot, so would be any subpeona, esp one NOT ordered by the CA Court.
I suspect that objections will be promptly filed by the BHO attorney to that respect, and that will be the end of the subpeona.
Readers, please consider this politely, but effectively stated logic carefully, and please don’t call me names. Rebut it if you wish and can.
2b
“Even die-hard supporters of Obama might wonder how he managed to travel to Pakistan in 1981 during a time when our State Department forbade American citizens to travel to that country.”
You know, I keep seeing that claim made, and have never seen any evidence such a ban was in place at that time. For that matter, the New York Times had a travel piece on 14 June 1981 about tourism in Lahore, Pakistan.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE2DA1338F937A25755C0A967948260&sec=travel&spon=&pagewanted=1
“Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports. Transportation within Lahore is plentiful, with taxis, scooter rickshaws and horse-drawn tongas (especially in the old city) readily available.” (Page 5)
Thanks Phil—Anything I can do to help the cause!! We must make Americans know that this has nothiing to do with Party affiliations, race, sex or religion!!! It is affecting my family in many ways and I just am not going to let these bullies take away our freedoms…..even if I must stand against my own flesh and blood!!
Nautique196,
Thanks for the comment and kind words,
-Phil
[...] Right Side of Life is reporting that in Keyes v Bowen a Subpoena duces tecum has been issued/requested for [...]
Nice site. It is nice to see the many lawsuits on the eligibility issue put together in a concise manner. In regard to Obama’s college records, I hope the information gets received. ‘Mr. Transparency’ has no records or writings available for his years at Columbia, Harvard and Occidental. I hope the truth eventually comes out, as Obama has not been at all forthcoming about his past.
Jackie Smith,
You’re beginning to steal my thunder! I’m going to be linking to that letter in an upcoming posting about next week’s legal events.
Thanks for the commentary,
-Phil
Jamie,
As I just commented for Reality Check:
I will say the following: If I am considered “nuts” or some other — perhaps worse — pejorative simply because I dare question a politician’s credentials, then so be it. It is far better to question things, in love, for the truth, than to live life in a blissful state of ignorance.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Phil—I want to share an e-mail here that I was so inclined to send out to family and friends after receiving a bullish e-mail from an Aunt and Uncle on my mother’s side of the family.
====================================================================Dear Friends and Family—-As we approach the possible swearing in of an illegal candidate to the POTUS please read the following information and letter to the editor sent to the Washington Times by Lonnie Leczo of Louisville, Kentucky.
Sadly, I was recently accused by a family member of not giving Mr. Obama a chance…. and degrading him. In the sentence before that I was told how “excited they were about our new leadership and finally got rid of the biggest crook in history. GEORGE W. BUSH”. It struck me as ironic because I was being accused of degrading Mr. Obama yet they were allowed to make a statement about an eligible President who served our country with much passion and patriotism…. the best he knew how! It made me wonder…who is really doing the degrading??? What I and many other Americans want to know are just plain and simple facts….. In no way am I degrading the man here but asking that he be honest with us and that the Constitution of the United States of America be upheld. How is that degrading and why is it so difficult for Mr. Obama to accommodate our request??
As one of many concerned citizens and Patriots, our mission for the truth will not end when Mr. Obama swears on a bible. The evidence is out there and it will come to light one way or another. In the meantime……The dangers to our nation and our families which Mr. Obama has put forth by being a USURPER are quite frightening and certainly very upsetting. Frankly, Mr. Obama’s statements of uniting America were nothing more than a “smoke screen” and words on a teleprompter. Shunning his challengers and hiding all his critical documents from public scrutiny for months on end has served no purpose except to divide our nation….one family at a time…and yes, divided we fall!!!
If you are an Obama fan out there and want to take this request for truth as degrading the man then so be it….. I guess that would be your opinion and freedom of speech. Just know though that there are many apprehensive Americans out here who want what is best for our country. We shall not be bullied into silence!! That being said….. It is up to Mr. Obama to earn our respect by following the Christian values and laws set forth by the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. I will continue to fight for my country and the rights of our unborn and in the process will pray for those who have lost sight of how this great nation got its start!
IN GOD WE TRUST AND IN GOD WE SHALL BE SAVED!
Jackie
=======================================================================================
LETTER TO EDITOR: Supreme Court accountability
Saturday, January 17, 2009
ASSOCIATED PRESS 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.
I stand amazed at what I am witnessing in our constitutional republic. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Constitution the rule of law in this nation? Don’t Supreme Court judges take oaths promising to protect and uphold that Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies? If our laws are derived from this text, then what is it called when those laws are ignored? It is called, “breaking the law.”
Our Constitution lays down the eligibility requirements for presidents. One requirement states that the president of the United States must be a natural-born citizen. Now, any reasonable thinking person knows citizenship is proven by one’s birth certificate.
President-elect Barack Obama’s presentation of a Certification of Live Birth certified that he was born alive but not that he was born in Hawaii. So we have rumors of a Kenyan birth. How do you get to the bottom of rumors? You inquire and investigate.
Our Supreme Court judges are required to uphold our law and get to the bottom of this unnecessary upheaval that Mr. Obama has hurled America into. What’s so hard about producing a real birth certificate? He is challenging our rule of law by refusing to prove his natural-born citizenship and is, therefore, undermining the foundation of our nation.
If our Supreme Court justices continue to deny “hearing” the many lawsuits that they are being presented with concerning Mr. Obama’s citizenship, then they are failing to do their jobs. The law states eligibility through natural-born citizenship is required. It is the court’s duty to get to the bottom of this and hold Mr. Obama accountable to the law.
LONNIE LECZO
Louisville, Ky.
================================================================================
FOLKS>>>>>>>THESE ARE THE FACTS!!!!!!!
The COLB (presented on the internet) is prima facie evidence only if it is unaltered and the redacted certificate number means it has been altered and is therefore NOT EVIDENCIARY!
We do not know absolutely that the Supreme Court is choosing to do nothing. They may be waiting for the best time and the best case. There are however a myriad of others who have not kept their oath of office including every single elector, all Senators and Congressmen, the Secretaries of state and state election certifiers, and the state Governors.
The simple fact is that Obama has not established the date, time or place of his birth with any supporting documentation that carries any significant legal weight. The clumsy forgery posted on the Obama web site and “verified” by the “non-partisan” FactCheck.org would not even get you a driver’s license in the state of Hawaii. If that document was presented in a court of law, it would be more likely to get you a jail term.
There will always be some Obama disciples who will support the man regardless of what the facts show. If these unquestioning adorers of Mr. Obama took a minute or two to exercise some common sense and basic critical thinking, they would wonder, as many of us do, why Obama has sealed virtually all of his personal records from public scrutiny. College records (grades, transcripts, theses, financial aid forms), Illinois Senate records (his voting record, even his calendar), his legal clients’ list – all have been removed, destroyed, sealed or otherwise made unavailable to the general public and the media alike.
Even die-hard supporters of Obama might wonder how he managed to travel to Pakistan in 1981 during a time when our State Department forbade American citizens to travel to that country. They might even wonder how in the world Obama managed to raise such a huge amount of money during his campaign, a suspiciously large percentage of which came from sources outside the United States. On the other hand, many Obama fans don’t seem inclined to actually think for themselves and check the facts when simply repeating the Obama-approved talking points and tossing out the requisite ad hominem attacks is so much easier. Our Constitution guarantees each of us the right to vote, even those of us who have no respect for that Constitution. What a shame!
They will object. The truth doesn’t exist in them… only keeping the lies alive.
Loosen the screws on your tin foil hat. It’s choking off blood to your brain.
I believe that the subpoena should include all alias’s to insure that all records are produced. But I guess if Occidental were to say that a Barack Obama did not attend that would be telling enough.
I am just in awe witnessing all this. I can’t get over how this has transpired. Then again I can see how it has. We have no one to blame but our apathetic selves.