On Monday, May 2, 2011, oral arguments were heard on the appeal of Drake v. Obama(some history is also under Barnett v. Obama) at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Los Angeles Times has coverage, and the Ventura County Tea Party has an opinion piece from someone who was in the Court room.
I disagree with the opinion of the VC Tea Party individual with respect to the Judges “badgering” anyone. In my opinion, Mr. Kreep needed to stay with the standing question and should have performed sufficient research to know whether or not his (Mr. Kreep’s) perspective was correct. It may not have been, based upon (1) his client’s class of ability to bring the question; and (2) the timing that the case was brought before the Court.
Here’s the problem, per excellent questions by the Ninth District panel: If you’re not a candidate for the election in question, and if you haven’t filed a question with the Court during the actual campaign (e.g.: prior to the presidential candidate becoming a President-elect and, subsequently, President), there may not be a whole lot that anyone can do, short of pressuring Congress to actually do something about the question.
Having said all that, it also appears that the Judges asked the US Attorney a number of very good questions, definitely worth watching.
There are two questions at hand — one factual, and one legal. The factual question is where Mr. Obama was born; it would appear that he was physically born in Honolulu, Hawaii. The legal question that remains, at least in my mind, is whether or not both of his parents have to be US citizens for Mr. Obama to be a natural born citizen with respect to the presidency.
We know that Mr. Obama Sr. never naturalized as an American citizen, and we further know that as Kenyan citizen of a British protectorate, Mr. Obama Sr.’s children — no matter where, geographically, they were physically born — were British subjects until their respective ages of majority whereby they had the opportunity to let such British citizenship lapse, declare British citizenship, and/or take on other citizenship.
My question: can someone be born on US soil and, under any other circumstance become a natural born citizen, while at the same time taking on the citizenship of another country, and this taking on of additional citizenship does not affect their right to be a natural born citizen? If the answer is yes, then Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the US and is therefore constitutionally qualified to be President.
Commenter “slcraig” received the following response from sources in Arizona via email:
“To: SL Craig
Thank you so much for your great efforts to assist us in our understanding(s) as again evidenced by the detail of what you wrote below.
In my prepared statement which will be delivered before the committee(s) of the Az. Legislature, I do cite Vattel and the four Supreme Court cases that both you and the Post & Email (which I have mostly read) have mentioned. However, your summaries of them below are so precise and succinct that understandings become even easier.
I think the biggest matter you have raised for us is whether or not to go more than “halfway” as you put it and place the actual definition of natural born citizen directly into our proposed legislation HB2441
Back on Friday, January 8, Georgia GOP Representative and gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal had sent a letter to the President, presumably to ask him about his birth certificate (to date, the actual content of that letter is still unknown).
Today, at a University of Georgia gubernatorial debate, Mr. Deal downplayed both the letter and the entire eligibility question. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
– The next shot came from state Rep. Austin Scott of Tifton, who said it was “childish” to question President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. That, of course, was aimed at U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal of Gainesville, who has written a letter to the White House on that very same topic.
Deal responded that he had no interest in Obama’s birth certificate, and that his letter was “not an issue in the governor’s race.” The congressman said his letter only asked Obama to “tell me where I can refer the people” who are asking him questions.
Deal, who represents North Georgia in Congress, sent Obama a letter in December asking him to address lingering concerns that he actually was born in Kenya and thus is constitutionally barred from being president.
“I think that is a reasonable proposition, and certainly something I think the president should respond to, although at this point, he has not,” Deal said.
Deal said he was responding to constituents’ questions, and the letter should not be an issue in a state-level campaign.
At the State level, Arizona Republican State Representative Judy Burges and 39 other State Legislators had filed a candidate eligibility bill for consideration of the 2010 Legislature. Now, as WorldNetDaily reports, several other States are also considering various eligibility initiatives:
The demand for documentation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is surging, with lawmakers in several states now working on legislation that could be used to require future presidential candidates to reveal precisely how they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born citizen.”
WND already has reported on a bill co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers in Arizona who want to require candidates not only to submit the information, but state officials to independently verify the accuracy.
Bill sponsor Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she already has started getting questions from other states who want details about the proposal.
A separate proposal has been created by a freedom of information action group in New York state, and now the National Conference of State Legislatures, which monitors and tabulates the work of legislative bodies, confirms through its database that several other plans are in the works.
Some of the proposals are very clear even without the full text. In New Hampshire, for example, a pending plan would require “certified copies of birth certificates for nominees for president and vice president.”
Others are a little more oblique. In Georgia, for example, lawmakers propose a bill “relating to procedures for qualification of candidates generally, so as to require each candidate for public office to be in compliance with certain disclosure requirements.”
There is no definitive word on what that would mean to presidential candidates.
An Indiana proposal is equally unclear, because it “authorizes a challenge to a candidate’s eligibility to seek an office to be filed by a registered voter of the jurisdiction conducting the election.” It could apply only to local elections.
In Virginia, a summary says the proposal “provides that candidates shall provide evidence of their qualifications for office to have their names printed on the ballot. The State Board of Elections shall provide a list of acceptable forms of evidence.”
And in the New York state plan proposed by a freedom of information organization to state lawmakers would provide that “an individual seeking placement on the New York State’s election ballot(s) for the office of president or vice president of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.”
WND followed up on legislator thoughts regarding the Arizona bill:
In Arizona, state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.
“It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen,” she told the Arizona Capitol Times.
If states start adopting such election requirements, their laws possibly could have an impact similar to federal legislation, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.
As referenced, above, the Database of Election Reform Legislation is relatively simple to use in looking up bills. Go to the link and then select “Candidates-Qualifications for Office” in the “Subtopic” multi-select form.
We look forward to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing this matter and ordering a trial on the merits as to the Article II Constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.
We say Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” of the USA and thus is not eligible to serve in the Oval Office. Obama is a Usurper and must be removed to preserve the integrity and fundamental law of our Constitution and our Republic.
This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for President. Obama at birth was born British and a dual-citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenship during his life-time. He’s a Citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a “natural born Citizen” with sole allegiance andUnity of Citizenship at Birth to the USA as is required per the Constitution per the intent of our founders and the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional standards.
Attorney Apuzzo will comment more on this Appellant’s Brief in the next few days.
Today, US District Judge David Carter dismissd the eligibility case Barnett v. Obama, ultimately taking into conclusive account the Defense’s motion to dismiss. Judge Carter issued a 30-page opinion, below. “Opposition” site NativeBornCitizen covers a number of media links about this case.
As Mr. Obama has quipped in the past, I think that this opinion provides for a very poignant “teachable moment” regarding the eligibility movement. As a concerned citizen who has officially been opining about the eligibility movement since October 24, 2008, I am going to address some issues brought up in the opinion that are very likely to show that I am an Equal Opportunity Offender ™; when you’re as interested as I am in getting to the truth, you’re bound to upset individuals on all sides of an issue.
…Furthermore, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment sets forth the line of succession “in case ofthe removal of the president from office” or in case of his or her death, resignation, or inability to serve. The Amendment specifies a role for Congress in this process, but no role for the judiciary. The combination of Article I and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment leads the Court to conclude that there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of the removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political department–the Legislative branch.
Judge David Carter (via OustTheUsurper)
In Nixon, the Court also discussed prudential considerations that counseled against judicial review of Senate impeachment proceedings. 506 U.S. at 252 n.4. While Nixon involved the impeachment of a judge, the Court commented on the dangers of judicial review of impeachment of the President:
This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence its effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated.
506 U.S. at 236. The potential upheaval to this country that would result from a branch other than Congress ruling on the removal of the President weighs heavily in this case as well. The founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an orderly process of transition and succession during which the country can continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders.
Guess what? In this section (and I have attempted to preserve as much of Judge Carter’s context as this non-attorney concerned citizen can muster to make a point), Judge Carter is precisely right about not having the Judiciary actually remove a sitting President, and here’s why.
First of all, anyone would be absolutely hard-pressed to find any constitutional provision whereby the Judiciary is tasked with the power to actually remove a sitting President. After all, do you really want completely unelected individuals being able to almost arbitrarily (depending on the petition before them) make such absolutist decisions with respect to an elected individual? I can absolutely guarantee you that I wouldn’t want to live under such an oligarchy.
Secondly, Judge Carter makes an excellent observation: If the Judiciary were to remove a sitting President for whatever reason, how is that supposed to factor into an orderly succession of government? Remember: all aspects of impeachment are solely under the auspices of the Legislative branch, not the Judicial; the latter are elected, the former are selected. Therefore, what does it say about a government whereby the Legislative confirms the Electoral Votes for a presidential candidate, then the Judiciary removes such an individual, and then the Legislative goes about the process of installing a new President? Surely you can see the illogic — much less the unconstitutionality — of this thought process.
Have I sufficiently offended some of you yet? I have? Good! Because I’ve only gotten started. There’s still time for the rest of you currently unoffended or overjoyed individuals to become offended. Let’s continue.
From page 24:
At oral argument, Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson encouraged the Court to find that the redressability prong has been satisfied on the basis that President Obama’s removal from office would not require impeachment, which they agree is reserved by the Constitution for Congress. Because President Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for President, they argue, he was never a valid candidate and could not be validly elected. Because he does not validly hold the office of President, he would not be subject to the Constitution’s requirements regarding the removal of a president from office through impeachment. Finally, they reasoned that, because whatever alternative process would be required to remove the President is not set forth in the Constitution, it is not clearly reserved for another branch and is therefore within the province of this Court.
There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the naturalborn citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.
Guess what (number 2)? Mr. Obama is the President of the United States. I don’t care what you think about the guy, or if you think he has usurped the office (for all anyone knows, that is always a possibility), or whatever. Nevertheless, as far as our Constitution is concerned, he still remains the President. Therefore, to try to impeach the President for no matter what the reason can and never will be under the auspices of the Judiciary.
However — however! — all is absolutely not lost in terms of determining the legitimacy of Mr. Obama to be President. I’ll explain.
You see, as I’ve already profusely commented on my site, I’ve never thought that this issue has been about impeachment; I have always thought this is has been about eligibility; our fervent opposition to questioning this President’s bona fides really need to understand this fine point. As has been quite succinctly laid out by Judge Carter, while it is true that the Judiciary could actually step in and try to impeach the President (I can only imagine what kind of smack-down would politically occur in that respect), the Judiciary should not do this, because that’s not its power, per the Constitution (and we’re about following the Constitution, right? Yes, you are).
OK, then, instead, what should happen, going forward? A few things:
If an eligibility attorney were to read this post, I would encourage them to consider filing a petition with the Court addressing the ineligibility of the President and — in no uncertain terms — do not mention a thing about impeachment. In fact, the very word “impeachment” should only ever appear in full context that such a petition is not about removing the President. Instead, it is about determining the eligibility of the President. Need evidence? Challenge the authenticity of the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth — that might be one way to get the actual document into Court — and then challenge its ability to determine eligibility;
As attorney Leo Donofrio points out in his own take concerning this story, push for a quo warranto action. Immediately after what I last quoted from Judge Carter, there was full and relatively complete discussion concerning this provision as an aspect of office entitlement from within the District of Columbia. It’s interesting to me that this hasn’t really been pushed much at all; it’s perfectly legal and appears to be a potentially useful tool to determine eligibility;
Push for the federal Legislative branch to seriously consider presidential eligibility, specifically via HR 1503;
Last but not least, 2012 presents the next time that these types of eligibility cases would be taken “seriously” by the Judiciary; Judge Carter as much said so. And if the opposition thinks that these questions are going to go away by then, well… let’s just let them keep on thinking that way!
In conclusion, I am going to broach another subject about which I’ve previously cooled heated commentary, because it has to do with a private individual. That is the subject of Mr. Siddarth Velamoor having become one of the newest law clerks for Judge Carter (h/t WND).
I had previously said in a comment that Judge Carter was perfectly within his right to bring on board anyone he wished to clerk with him. However, after further thought on the Judge’s move, I am officially considering this a very questionable and potentially unethical move on his part.
Why? As the link to WorldNetDaily details, while Mr. Velamoor may possess a perfectly capable and able legal mind, he hails from the same law firm that has been retained in the past to defend Mr. Obama regarding eligibility lawsuits. Furthermore, it has also been reported that edits on Judge Carter’s Wikipedia page show that the maintainers are clearly biased against “birthers,” which I find in anecdotally very bad taste.
While it is true that the US Attorney’s office has been representing the Defendants in this case and not a specific law firm, I think it can be reasonably assumed that Judge Carter knows from whence Mr. Velamoor comes and should have realized the potential conflict of interest that this could have caused.
All of that being said, I would again urge that if you have something to say concerning the private citizen Mr. Siddarth Velamoor and you simply cannot keep it to yourself, please be civil about your misgivings, else I’ll have to quash any such uncivil discussion ASAP.
Besides — I’ve already said enough in this posting to get virtually everyone mad at me, so remember to keep it civil.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
Dr. Alan Keyes — one of the key Plaintiffs in this case — says on his blog that the case is moving forward and has not been stopped by a motion to dismiss. WorldNetDaily interviewed both the Plaintiffs and the Defense and they also seemed to confirm that no dismissals of any sort have yet to be granted.
In fact, in an interesting opinion, attorney Leo Donofrio states that Judge Carter has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the quo warranto complaint contained within this case and doesn’t understand why the US Attorneys haven’t grasped this aspect of the case as a means to sink it. After all, as he points out, according to federal statute, quo warranto is only to be heard in the US District Court for DC, the seat of government (which, incidentally, is not a State).
In my non-attorney citizen reporter opinion, what Judge Carter has done is taken the motion to dismiss “under submission” and likely as a part of one of the upcoming dates concerning summary judgment (that aspect of law, per the Conference Schedule, that attempts to ascertain whether or not a trial is needed to satisfy the grievances stated in the petition or whether or not the case should legitimately proceed to trial).
This would mean that the motion to dismiss has been neither granted nor denied, but can still be considered during a future date. Nevertheless, the case is moving forward, and as long as the case moves forward, there’s always a chance that it will continue to summary judgement and/or discovery and/or a trial.
In related news, commenter “reps” brings the following to our attention:
An interesting decision in the Arkansas Supreme Court that applies to Barnett v. Obama and may help Judge Carter with some of the decisions he has to make; an election issue regarding eligibility, subject matter jurisdiction, precedent and after election judicial action. Hopefully Taitz and Kreep will use this in a follow-up to Judge Carter.
As hadbeendiscussed on this blog, attorney Dr. Orly Taitz’ case, Barnett v. Obama, hit its next major milestone with US District Judge David Carter making no new motions today except a promise to consider submissions from both sides and making known his concerns for both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. This was revealed in a transcript of sorts by the opposition forum site, Politijab.com, via the site NativeBornCitizen:
While the above document is a bit long at 33 pages, it is really the 32 page that I found the most informative of the entire document:
Carter then essentially cut off further argument saying that he needs more time. He did not make a tentative ruling today. He wants to consider the arguments that have been made both in the written papers and during the hearing.
He turned to plaintiffs and said, I’m most concerned about standing.
To the defendants he said, I’m most concerned about justicability, correct venue, political question, and how far do the courts go.
He turned back to plaintiffs and said, if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future.
To the audience he said, your applause has not influenced me at all, one way or the other.
To Orly he said, apparently you’ve encouraged people to call me on your blog. Please discourage the phone calls. They don’t help. It was inappropriate for you to do that. However, it won’t bear on my decision.
He then stated, obviously you’ve had no scheduling conference, but we’ll stick by the dates previously set for now.
He thanked everybody and the hearing ended. [emphases added]
I’ll come back to some of these points in a minute. In the meantime, here’s a collection of sentiments regarding today’s hearing:
The GiveUsLiberty blog sports a number of postings on today’s activity.
Getting back to Politijab.com’s “transcript” of the hearing, I will reiterate once again that The Right Side of Life’s position on contacting a Courthouse for the purpose of attempting to sway any official in any direction is to completely discourage such behavior. While the “transcript” is not an official one, considering the source, it is highly likely to be true to the Court reporter’s official one.
Instead of potentially causing further issues with the Court through political activism within the Judiciary, it is my view that a far wiser and significantly more powerful means of persuasion is prayer. It isn’t glamorous, it doesn’t necessarily provide the instant gratification of an ultimate decision on a moment’s notice (but then again, are you operating on God’s timing or your own? Be honest!), but at least you’ll recognize Who’s really in control in all of this.
Plus, you’ll keep your blood pressure down, it’ll give you a few moments of respite from your daily worries, and you’ll become more focused on what the Main Thing In Life ™ really is. Yeah, I know — the opposition will continue going on about how this case might get dismissed and so forth, but if you’re like me, you really don’t care about that, because this issue is and always has been about much bigger things in life, such as political accountability.
And where does political accountability come from? It comes from a sense of justice and morality that has been bestowed upon us via not only the Constitution but that even greater collection of literature, the Bible.
So, again — do you want to make a difference? Then get praying. Then think about what what skills and talents you have and start taking that first step, on faith (based on the fact that since you are created in the image of God, you do have at least one skill and talent bestowed upon you!), and be the change you want to see.
Oh, yeah — and if you don’t think that a handful of people can’t make a difference, then apparently you’re simply refusing to see the results of what happened with 12 guys that got together without any technology except sheets of paper and word of mouth roughly 2,000 years ago.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
This evening, the Andrea Shea-King BlogTalkRadio show will be interviewing attorney Gary Kreep regarding Drake v. Obama. According to her posting, on May 2, the 9th US Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments for the case. More background information can be found here and here.
Ambassador Alan Keyes once again does a fabulous job of describing the eligibility issue:
Donald Trump responds to Greta van Susteren regarding Karl Rove and eligibility:
Trump is also interviewed by Anderson Cooper:
Franklin Graham is also questioning Mr. Obama, and the White House said they didn’t like his “preposterous” statements:
Trump has some things to say about Robert de Niro and praises Franklin Graham:
Louisiana State Senator A. G. Crowe quite graciously and presciently responds to CNN’s Randi Kaye over his State’s eligibility bill:
Lone GOP Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom was interviewed on WABC 770AM in New York City and thinks that whatever information — such as Mr. Obama’s father — can be found on the long-form birth certificate is what Mr. Obama doesn’t want known (MailOnline coverage):
Retired Lieutenant Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III posted his own update per his new site, TheJagHunter. The following are pertinent excerpts:
Interactions with the Monroe County Grand Jury “committee” yesterday were most unsatisfying, however…
TREASON is alive as a criminal accusation naming OBAMA! It was agreed yesterday the crime of TREASON CAN BE advanced against OBAMA in a Tennessee State criminal trial. It was established also the formal accusation for TREASON CAN BE advanced into a Federal criminal trial received from Tennessee State.
But we’re not there yet.
The Monroe County Grand Jury “committee” was comprised of four men. Gary Pettway was absent. Monroe County Deputy Sheriff Byrum was present. The lead Juryman, standing at a speakers podium to my left was in contact with the County Prosecutor’s Office by cell phone.
It took 45-minutes for clarity and focus to take a seat in the room and participate in the deliberations.
The four Jurymen were not clear about the criminal actors or the particular crimes the four Jurors were to inspect.
There was a pointed conversation about what the four Jurors had been tasked to do. …
“Coach” was told the four men were to consider only whether Gary Pettway (Foreman), and Assistant District Attorney James Stutts obstructed efforts on 3 September and 1 October 2009 to report criminal conduct to the full Grand Jury.
TREASON and FORGERY were the two specific criminal acts the four Jurors scrutinized as it went to the obstruction of STUTTS and PETTWAY. …
The end result is this: The STUTTS and PETTWAY issue moves to the side. Interesting, but no longer relevant. Their obstructions are cleared away.
It is not clear when the full Monroe Grand Jury (numbering thirteen) will sit to receive the document record proving OBAMA’S criminal escapades. I’ll tell you all I know when I know. Updates will be posted hear. …
The four Grand Jurymen openly discussed yesterday a second criminal complaint from a Monroe County man naming OBAMA in commission of TREASON. The committee was unclear regarding the status of the second criminal accusation.
And, unfortunately, it’s too bad that there are those individuals on this planet that simply cannot find any way to agree to disagree with the LTCDR:
This comment came in to The JAG HUNTER yesterday afternoon at 1334 hours local (1:34 PM):
“I’m sure glad I live in a different state than you do.
“If I lived near you, I’d take the time to make a special trip to put a bullet right between your TREASONOUS eyes.
“I sure hope you (expletives) America-hating tea-bag waving traitors hurry up and have your civil war. I want to be the first kid on the block with a confirmed kill of a Republican!!!”
I’ll moderate this comment by reporting it today to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Monroe County Sheriff and local police.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 update:
I have received evidence from two sources that the Tennessee grand jury has not returned any sort of decision yet with respect to LTCDR Fitzpatrick’s presentation.
*UPDATE: James Stutts, the Monroe County District Attorney, left a message Monday night saying that in fact, Fitzpatrick testified for two hours before the grand jury in August and the jury declined to bring any charges based on his testimony. He also disputes Fitzpatrick’s characterization of that appearance and says the former Navy man was not physicially restrained in any way nor was he forced from the courtroom.
However, AmericanGrandJury.org posted the following from a certain Phil Dedrick, a concerned citizen who says he was on site:
Outside the courthouse with 36 supporters who showed up from Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Iowa…I also advised the crowd that The AGJ will be incorporating the Pendleton 8 in it’s next Jury…Even Channel 10 WBIR from Knoxville showed up and listened to all of Walter’s story today…With the big box and back pack that had all of Walters evidence, I can not see how the Monroe County Jury could even comptemplate not returning a TRUE BILL in favor of handing down the charges…
Representatives who showed up are from these following organizations:
(Tennessee Patriots from ResistNet.com)
(2 Un-Named individuals with Tennessee OathKeepers)
(TN. SonsOfLiberty.org President, Phil Hoffman, (Constitution Party of Tennessee 1st Vice State Chairman, Mr. Jim Headings, Mr. Doyle Pritchard and 6 more member un-named, they are also with the Tea Party Nation)
(Unknown??? County, Chairman from The Constitution Party of TN., Mr. Corky McDonald)
(Mike Williams, McMinn County, TN. Tea Party)
(Dorothy Cook, John Coker, and Barry Toomey with the TeaPartyNation, Athens, TN.)
(Jerry Henderson, Unknown Organization)
(Naomi Swanson with Chattanooga Patriots, but from Dalton, GA.)
(Joy Duval with Chattanooga Patriots/SmartGirlsPolitics.com)
(J.K. Williams and several other Smokey Mountain 9/12′ers)
(Glenda Marshall with Unknown Organization)
(and several un-named supporters totaling 36 supporers)…
My group left after Walter went into the Grand Jury room because we learned today that the Grand Jury will give their decision in a few days and not today…
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III referenced a CanadaFreePress article via his blog stating that his treason charges over Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the presidency will be presented before a Tennessee grand jury (a Court-appointed grand jury, not a citizen grand jury) tomorrow, December 1:
After visits from the Secret Service and months of rejection by the courts, Commander Walter Fitzpatrick may get his day in court.
On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee. [emphases original]
Much more is at the referenced link. LTCDR Fitzpatrick apparently had some previous issues with this grand jury:
Fitzpatrick had to go so far as to file criminal obstruction charges against Foreman Pettway before he would gain access to the court. Despite it all, Commander Fitzpatrick forged ahead and on December 1st, his complaint will be heard by his local Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury.
It is not immediately clear at this time what the reason is for the grand jury’s formation nor at what time or to what extent that LTCDR Fitzpatrick would be presenting his evidence.
In related news, Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, released the following concerning his case being appealed:
25 Nov 2009 – For Immediate Release
There is activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA has issued a Briefing Notice schedule for the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case.
Brief due dates for the Appeal are now set for 4 Jan 2010. We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court. They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a “natural born Citizen” of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle. And, the Supreme Court will also be asked to refer their legal definition to Congress to determine if Obama meets that legal ruled definition. I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper.
Is it really too much to think that Mr. Obama could not have lied about his background to ensure his own political ascendancy? What does anyone really know about this man’s past outside of an alleged certification of live birth?
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
Kerchner et al vs. Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit Decision Appealed to Federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA
JAMESBURG, NJ – (Oct. 27, 2009) – Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg, NJ, today filed an appeal with the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, PA, on behalf of plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lehigh County, PA; Lowell T. Patterson, Burlington County, NJ; Darrell J. LeNormand, Middlesex County, NJ; and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., Middlesex County, NJ; challenging the recent decision of Judge Jerome Simandle, Federal District Court, Camden, NJ, dismissing the lawsuit charging that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records, and has not conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military.
Obama was born a British Subject to a British Subject father and Obama is still a British Subject/Citizen to this day since he has never renounced it. According to this lawsuit Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiances, is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required the President have sole allegiance to the USA at birth, which Obama does not have. Obama has multiple foreign allegiance claims on him because of his British birth. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen or immigrant to the USA. The lawsuit seeks a trial on the merits to determine the true facts of Obama’s legal identity and exact citizenship status and requiring Obama to prove to the courts that he is eligible for the federal office he sits in per our Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which states:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The legal term of art, natural born citizen, is defined by the world renowned legal scholar Emmerich de Vattel in his pre-eminent legal treatise and enlightenment to the world of jurisprudence in the revolutionary period, The Law of Nations and Natural Law, published in 1758, and which was used by the founders during the Continental Congress formation of our country and by the framers of our U.S. Constitution, and whose definition of natural born Citizen is incorporated in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Vattel and U.S. Supreme Court decisions agree that a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country. Obama’s father was not a citizen, nor even an immigrant to the USA. Thus Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed early in the morning of January 20, 2009, before Obama was sworn in. The case was dragged out by delays by the government in addressing the case and deciding on whether the case would proceed to a fact finding trial on the merits or not. The court has decided that it will not go to the merits and has dismissed the case using technical and procedural tactics to keep the Plaintiffs from getting to the merits of the charges.
By the Court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the Court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American People unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
For more information about the lawsuit see these links:
In a posting regarding attorney Gary Kreep’s appeal of Keyes v. Bowen to the 3rd Appellate District Court in California (a case different from attorney Dr. Orly Tait’s case, also on appeal), WorldNetDaily reports that there is precedent for Court removal of a governmental chief executive.
Longtime readers will recall when I last reported on this case that the Plaintiffs did not have all of their research in order to prove to the Court that such eligibility petitions were not unprecedented. In fact, at the time, Ballot-Access.org reported the following:
On March 13, California Superior Court Judge Michael Kenney tentatively ruled against Alan Keyes, in the lawsuit concerning whether President Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be president, and whether the California Secretary of State should have put him on the ballot. The case is Keyes v Bowen, 34-2008-8000096-CU-WM-GDS. The 6-page opinion seems to strengthen the rights of political parties to place anyone they wish on the November ballot, regardless of that candidate’s qualifications.
The decision says, “Defendants contend that Election Code sec. 6901 requires the Secretary of State to place on the ballot the names of the candidates submitted to her by a recognized political party and that she has no discretion to override the party’s selection. The Court finds that the First Amended Petition fails to state a cause of action against the Secretary of State…Federal law establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. That procedure is for objections to be presented before the U.S. Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15.”
In 1968, the California Secretary of State refused to list Eldridge Cleaver on the November ballot as the presidential nominee of the Peace & Freedom Party. Cleaver and PFP sued the Secretary of State, but the State Supreme Court refused to hear the case, by a 6-1 vote. Cleaver and the party then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, but that Court refused, 393 U.S. 810 (October 7, 1968). In this current Keyes lawsuit, attorneys for the Defendants claimed there was no such lawsuit. The attorney for Keyes did not have the California Supreme Court citation (58 Minutes 411), nor the U.S. Supreme Court cite, so he wasn’t able to establish the existence of this 40-year old precedent that does seem to give the Secretary of State the authority to refuse a party’s choice for president, if the Secretary of State thinks the party chose someone who doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications. Keyes will appeal and his appeal will include the Cleaver precedent citation.
Eldridge Cleaver had been removed from the California ballot because the Secretary of State had learned that he was only 33 years old. [emphasis mine]
As WND states (and somewhat reiterating what I’ve quoted from Ballot-Access):
“In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president,” the brief, being filed this week, argues.
“Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver, unsuccessfully, challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States, which affirmed the actions.”
The other is a court precedent in which the governor of North Dakota was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution’s eligibility requirements. …
Kreep alleges the dismissal of the state case by Judge Michael Kenny was in error because the defendants “failed to establish that there was no triable cause of action on the critical constitutional issues of whether Obama has met the eligibility requirements to serve as president of the United States and whether Bowen has the duty, as chief elections officer of the state of California, to verify the eligibility of candidates for federal office running in the state of California.”
The president’s lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don’t have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution’s provision that president’s must be removed by impeachment, which rests with Congress.
In one case, the president’s lawyers prominently argued, “The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.
“The examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress,” the president’s lawyers argued.
But the issue, however, already has been adjudicated by courts, and the resolution is that courts do have the authority to review eligibility and even remove an ineligible chief executive, the appeal brief cites.
“Even though Obama was elected to this office, this ineligibility constitutes a legal disability for the office of president of the United States,” the brief states. “In ‘State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie,’ after Thomas H. Moodie was duly elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor,” the brief explains. …
The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.
“As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed,” the state’s archives report. “After Moodie’s inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935,” the state reports.
“We’re seeking to bar anyone from going on the presidential ballot in 2012 unless they can prove that they’re eligible,” Kreep told WND.
“Appellants contend that Bowen has a duty to ensure that all candidates in the state of California, for both federal and state offices, meet the eligibility requirements for the offices sought, that Bowen did not fulfill said duty, and that a court determination is needed to ensure that the California secretary of state comply with this duty in the future,” the brief said. …
Further, courts can address the problem.
While the dispute has “significant political overtones,” it is, nonetheless, “an issue which the court can make a determination on, because the requirements are clearly stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, of the U.S. Constitution and courts routinely decide questions of law and of fact such as the issue in this case.”
“A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people, as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States,” it continues.
“Respondents denied that this Cleaver case had any relevance to the underlying issue … Similarly, in 1984, the Peace and Freedom Party listed Mr. Larry Holmes as an eligible candidate in the presidential primary. When the then SOS checked his eligibility, it was found that Mr. Holmes was, similarly, not eligible, and Mr. Holmes was removed from the ballot… It this case, we have a similar situation in that the Democratic Party submitted the name of Obama as a candidate for president,” the brief argues.
First, “significant political overtunes” must be irrelevant for the Judiciary, else no decision could ever be made on any constitutional question. Therefore, to me, this is a moot point.
Yet, let’s get back to the bigger issue of eligibility and the Courts.
This political question with respect to the Judiciary can be broken down into a number of legitimate points:
Can the Judiciary determine whether or not a candidate is eligible for a sought-after office?
Can the Judiciary issue an opinion that would subsequently cause a candidate to be ineligible for such office?
To what extent is the Judiciary tasked with enforcing the constitutional question of eligibility?
In this citizen reporter’s non-attorney opinion, the answer is that the Judiciary does have a role in making sure that the law is enforced, particularly by those other branches that are tasked with such a duty.
Remember, I have repeatedly stated that since there currently exists no law that enforces presidential or vice presidential constitutional eligibility nor to what degree it ought to be enforced, it would be practically impossible for the Court to issue an order against a non-existent law. Therefore, if the Judiciary is to be petitioned regarding eligibility, another route must be used instead; this posting could be such an opening.
On the one hand, we are told by many a Defendant in various eligibility cases that the Secretary of State has, effectively, no discretion in determining whether or not a candidate could be placed on the ballot. As this posting shows, the Defendants have either been lying or ignorant (then the question becomes whether such ignorance is willful or not) when there is already such existing precedent.
Further, it is also a contention that “only” (“the exclusive means”) the Congress and/or the Electoral College is tasked by the Constitution and/or federal law for vetting a candidate. Again, precedent clearly shows that this is not the case. Furthermore, any Defendant would be hard-pressed to find any verbiage (outside of their albeit learned opinions) that specifically states that the Joint Session of Congress and/or the Electoral College are “only,” “solely,” or “exclusively” the routes for answering eligibility questions. Incidentally, no opposition commenter on this site can find such exclusive verbiage either, outside of their own worthy opinions.
Lastly, there is the issue of removal. As I’ve stated numerous times on my site — and as the singular point upon which the opposition and I agree — the Judiciary cannot lawfully remove a sitting President, and it’s just as unlikely that the branch could remove a lower chief executive. Nevertheless, making a determination as to the eligibility of a President is something that can be quintessentially within its jurisdiction, where the Legislative branch would subsequently be tasked with such official removal.
In my view, what Mr. Kreep must show the Court is how deficient the Secretary of State for California was in making a determination for whether or not Mr. Obama should have been placed on the ballot; he might even ask her upon what basis did she make her determination. Did she use the Internet to vet Mr. Obama? Did she even vet Obama at all?
Either way, clear precedent exists that her very office had previously vetted candidates. Based on what we know today, it’s a shame that such vetting — whether it resulted positively or negatively — did not occur.
It’s also exceedingly obvious that her office’s finger-pointing back to the Democrat party is a complete ruse.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
Recently, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Elaine Brown affirmed the lower Court’s decision regarding Ankeny v. Daniels and set off some interesting dissent regarding the natural born citizenship issue.
Attorney Leo Donofrio posted the following in response to the Judge’s opinion:
Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks. This Indiana decision is pure evil. They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008. Before that time, it was not known. The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]
The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizen” clause. The errors of fact and law incorporated into the decision serve as a beacon outlining the desperation certain government factions now face. Obviously, the British birth issue is getting on their nerves and this was clearly an attempt to derail further national discussion on this issue. …
Their main argument is to state that citizens are only born or naturalized. That fails to take into account the framers (and other original citizens) who themselves were neither born citizens nor were they naturalized. So the Court proves itself a bit wonky on that point. Still, I certainly do not dispute that today all US citizens are either born or naturalized. But that’s not the point. The necessary evaluation requires consideration of the various types of born citizenship. And on this important issue, the Indiana Court of Appeals has failed.
Born citizens can be broken up into three groups:
1. natural born
2. citizens by statute
3. 14th amendment citizens
- All three classes were born as US citizens, but not all three are the same. Persons born abroad are citizens by federal statute.
- A person born on US soil to alien parents who were domiciled here, according to Wong Kim Ark, is a 14th Amendment citizen.
- Natural born citizens are born on US soil to parents who are citizens.
All of the above are citizens, but each reaches their citizenship through different circumstances.
To be “natural born” is a circumstance of citizenship. It is not a separate level of citizenship. All citizens have equal rights. But naturalized citizens aren’t eligible for the office of President. This is because the natural born citizen clause is a national security measure, not a right of citizenship. The Indiana Court conveniently ignores this point.
Born citizens are not necessarily bestowed with citizenship in the same way. Some require a statute. Some require the 14th Amendment. Some were natural born and their citizenship was self-evident. …
…Something I uncovered a few months ago that has been overlooked by all of the parties is that the certification filed with Indiana’s Election Division by the DNC and Indiana’s Democratic Party omitted language certifying that Barack Obama was a natural born citizen. That’s not a problem though for Judge Brown, who then went on to offer her constitutional interpretation of what “natural born citizen” means, something our U.S. Supreme Court has never done and something she had no obligation to do since there were already sufficient grounds to affirm Judge Dreyer’s dismissal of the badly flawed lawsuit.
The only thing I believe the plaintiffs got right in their lawsuit was their contention that a “natural born citizen” is a person born within the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents. Obama’s father was at all times during his life a citizen of Kenya, which at the time of Obama’s birth was a British commonwealth. By virtue of his father’s citizenship, Obama was indisputably a dual citizen at birth. A person owing allegiance to two countries cannot be described as a natural born citizen in my opinion. The fact that Obama says he never affirmed his British citizenship before the age he was legally required to do so is irrelevant. A fact conveniently overlooked in Judge Brown’s decision is that Obama immigrated to Indonesia at age 6 with his mother and became a citizen in that country as well after his step-father adopted him. Sen. John McCain also arguably was not a natural born citizen because he was born in a Panamanian hospital while his father was stationed at a Navy base in the Panama Canal Zone. Both Obama and McCain are U.S. citizens for different reasons, but the term “natural born citizen” is a unique term used in the U.S. Constitution only to define a person’s eligibility to serve as president. …
It is worth noting that of the dozens of cases that have been brought forth over the past year challenging whether Obama is a natural born citizen, this is the only opinion that has been decided on the merits of the claim that he is not a natural born citizen. Every other decision refrained from making any determination on the actual merit; instead, the courts dismissed the complaints for lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs to bring the constitutional eligibility challenge. There’s a reason other courts failed to reach a conclusion Judge Brown reached in this opinion. It is based upon the long-held rule of constitutional interpretation that a court should refrain from deciding a case on constitutional grounds when the case can be disposed of on other non-constitutional grounds. Procedurally, this case had to be dismissed because the plaintiffs sued the wrong defendant and lacked standing to sue. There was no reason for the court to decide a constitutional question as it did in this case, and that’s what makes it so disturbing. Judge Terry Crone and Melissa May signed on to Judge Brown’s decision. Gov. Mitch Daniels appointed Judge Brown to the Court of Appeals last year. I bet we won’t hear Gov. Daniels complaining about the judicial activism of his own appointees like he did the judges who ruled Indiana’s voter I.D. law unconstitutional.
The truth of all the above can be summed up in the following two points:
The Judiciary has never made a ruling on the definition of natural born citizenship eligibility with respect to the presidency. For any Judge to attempt to opine on the subject, as has been done before when there is no legitimate reason to do so, shows further anecdotal evidence that the Judiciary needs to be restrained;
Since even this Judge won’t touch the fact that Mr. Obama was a British citizen at birth, this bigger issue of his background will continue until the evidence is shown that otherwise contradicts what is already admitted about this man.
Is the birther movement bad for the Republican Party?
I don’t think its a reflection of the Republican Party. I think that people trying to connect the two are exaggerating and trying to make a point.
Do you think President Obama was born in this country?
Absolutely. I have no question about Obama’s citizenship. [emphases original]
In response, commenter “MGB” pretty much sums up my response to this questioning:
Better questions would be: Do you KNOW that Obama was born in this country? If so, HOW do you know?
No, “because I saw an image of a document on the Internet” doesn’t cut it, because nobody’s been able to authenticate the document to which the image points. To date, any such official relationship is purely — how did Judge Brown put it? — ah, yes: conclusory.
Plaintiff Charles Kerchner of the case currently in appeal, Kerchner v. Obama, has submitted the following ad to The Washington Times Weekly:
And John Charlton at The Post & Email posts that the Director of Hawaii’s Office of Information Practices has resigned:
(Nov. 16, 2009: 7:30 PM ET) — The Director of the Office of Information Practices (OIP) in Hawaii resigned quietly from his position on Nov. 6th and where he went is unclear, according to Hawaii government personnel. …
Don Shimabukuro of that office, in passing, mentioned to me that the director, Mr. Paul Tsukiyama took another position with the state, and had resigned from his position of Director of the Office of Information Practices on Nov. 6th. Since Nov. 9th the acting director is Cathy Takase. When asked what position Mr. Tsukiyama had taken, Mrs. Shimabukuro was unclear where he had gone.
I contacted the Office of Governor Lingle, on the hunch that it was the governor who nominated or promoted the former Director. That office too was unclear what position he had taken, saying that they had never heard of Paul Tsukiyama. Mrs. Queenie, at the Office of Constituent Affairs, expressed surprise at Shimabukuro’s lack of awareness of her former Director’s new position, saying, “And that office wouldn’t tell you where he went?” [emphases original]
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
It is already known that nobody has stepped forward to vouch for witnessing or being connected to Mr. Obama’s birth as alleged to have been in some Hawaiian hospital. And now it appears that nobody seems to while some individuals associated with Columbia University seem to remember their fellow classmate at Columbia University (see the mixed and varied commentary associated with this posting), nobody appears to be able to vouch for his records.
The Anti-Mullah blog posted this story last Sunday; I did some further research to find out from whence they pulled much of the verbiage in their posting.
First, Reason.com posted an article back in September, 2008 in which they interviewed the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate, Wayne Allen Root (poignantly excerpted quotes):
Root is no fan of the Democratic nominee: “A vote for Obama is four years of Karl Marx, and no one should be happy about that,” he told us and a few genial young libertarian activists over cocktails. “He’s a communist! I don’t care what anybody says. The guy’s a communist…. And his mother was a card-carrying communist, and he says she’s the most important person in his entire life; he learned everything from her.”
But the thing Root really wanted to talk about was Obama’s grades. Specifically, he was willing to bet a million dollars that he earned a better grade point average at Columbia than his old classmate, and that the only reason Obama went on to Harvard Law School was the color of his skin. …
“I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is that I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! … Where was Obama? He wasn’t an outgoing young man, no one ever heard of him. …
Class of ’83 political science, pre-law Columbia University. You don’t get more exact than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was.” …
There’s much more at the posting.
It also appears that The New York Times had interviewed Mr. Root during the next month:
Neither one knew their famous Columbia classmate, Barack Obama. “I’ve not only not met him,” Mr. Root said, “I’ve not met anybody who met him.”
Part of Anti-Mullah’s posting covered reporting on the part of Fox News (h/t NewsHounds, August, 2008, excerpted):
The FOX website released a collection of information about Obama to go along with their examination of his “character and conduct’. The choice of material pretty much illustrates the message they crafted in last night’s piece. …
Although time was spent exploring Obama’s community work in Chicago there was very little emphasis on his teaching career at the University of Chicago. Although viewers were informed that after interviewing 400 Columbia University graduates none of them knew Barack Obama when he attended, they didn’t bother to interview even one of his students about their experiences in Obama’s class. Wouldn’t that have provided insight into the candidates character?
The friendship with Sohale Siddiqi who he meant when he left home for the first time at 18 to attend Occidental College was made into a big deal during the documentary. They made a point to note that Obama visited Pakistan at age 20 to visit Siddiqi’s family. Then gravely explored Obama rooming with him in New York when he first got there alone, broke and homeless to go to Columbia. Obama had written about being forced to sleep on the streets for a few nights and waking up in an alley with a chicken pecking at him. FOX News managed to use it to connect Obama to the drug world with a claim from a New York City detective that the alley was located in a rough neighborhood run by Dominican drug lords.It’s doubtful that they were trying to stress that Obama’s poverty had put him in danger. The article about Obama and Saddiqi on the website is far more positive and objective than last night’s coverage.
Part of the last link in the above quote to The Seattle Times:
The Obama campaign declined to discuss Obama’s time at Columbia and his friendships in general. It won’t, for example, release his transcript or name his friends. It did, however, list five locations where Obama lived during his four years here: three on Manhattan’s Upper West Side and two in Brooklyn – one in Park Slope, the other in Brooklyn Heights. His memoir mentions two others on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.
Naturally, there’s the question of Columbia’s yearbook. This question is more than fully covered by DBKP and further commentary over at FreeRepublic; both links are certainly worth investigating for more insights into next to no background on this President.
While part of the story is dealing with Mr. Obama’s presence at Columbia University, I would invite all of my readers to not miss the bigger point here:
There is clearly precious little evidence showing substantial bona fides for this President. And for someone who claims to want to operate within the realm of transparency, one could not be any more opaque.
In related eligibility news, here are two links regarding the now-dismissed but promised-to-be-appealed Kerchner v. Obama case: