Yet another "Anonymous Obot" has appeared on these pages to try to disrupt our discussions in response to a recent blog post:
Just curious, why would someone hire a PI, pay $1,000.00 (maybe more) to obtain a document that is a public record and has been there since 1964? Fee for this probably what? $20.00. Also, the news report stated that they were able to find the Dunham/Obama divorce decree but the Dunham-Obama/Soetoro divorce decree could not be found (scrubbed), yet, it was posted here on line what? about a couple of weeks ago? Can't believe whoever got the first one, could not have gotten the 2nd one at the same time. And, in the Dunham-Obama/Soetoro divorce decree, the place of birth for the children is not listed? Why would the Indonesian school registration list Honolulu as where Obama was born yet divorce decree list Kenya? Doesn't make any sense. I seriously doubt if Stanley Ann Dunham was trying to "conspire to hide" anything when Obama was a child.
This character purports to be astounded that one thousand dollars was spent on some public record that has been available since 1964 for twenty dollars. Actually, one thousand dollars is nothing. At this point, the legal fees spent by Obama to hide his past are probably up in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the value of the volunteer labor and pro-bono legal work by those questioning Obama amounts to probably even more. There have been at least 4 major full page newspaper advertisements that have cost many tens of thousands of dollars. There have been tens of thousands of dollars of FEDEX charges and thousands upon thousands of certified mail expenses and regular postal expenses. A lot of money has been spent. Because Obama has steadily refused, for many months now, to produce a 10 dollar document.
In addition, one thousand dollars to get a hold of a potentially important document in a far-off place like Hawaii is not exorbitant.
There have been assorted reports that not all of these supposedly easily obtainable public documents are so easy to find. Were they "scrubbed"? Or are these just examples of an incompetent bureaucracy?
This Obot seems to think that there are no mistakes on official documents and that we can trust all documents that purport to be official records. This Obot seems to believe that it is impossible for anyone to perpetrate fraud when filling out official paperwork, including a handwritten document from a Third World country over 3 decades old, in a foreign language. Of course, the Obot would discount the recorded interview with the Kenyan paternal grandmother as being un-realible, since that is from the Third World. And the Obot would discount the statements of the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States since this Ambassador comes from the Third World. And yet this Obot wants us to believe that the school registration from Indonesia is completely reliable (only the Honolulu birth location, not the Muslim religion or the Indonesian citizenship, of course)? A bit of a double standard. And again, an anonymous Obot cherry picking the evidence to find only material that supports the new "Messiah".
Why might Obama's mother or his adopted father have written "Honolulu" as the birthplace on the Indonesian school registry? Why would an Indonesian official have written "Honolulu" as the birthplace on the Indonesian school registry? There are lots of potential reasons:
(1) It could have been a mistake or the result of a misunderstanding. After all, Obama had been living in Honolulu, or might have been, before going to Indonesia. This is not particularly clear. The school official or Leo Soetoro might have just assumed it was true. After all this was not a super important document; just a school registration.
(2) Stanley Ann Dunham registered the foreign births of her other two children in Hawaii, possibly to give them access to the rights and privileges of American citizenship or a connection with the US if they wanted it later. Why not Obama as well?
After all, Dunham expressed disdain for the US, as did her parents, but still maintained a connection with the US when it was to her advantage, such as working for US foundations. This is not uncommon among those who style themselves as "radicals and revolutionaries". They work to attack the system, while still taking advantage of what the system has to offer. Anyone familiar with William Ayers?
(3) Perhaps Dunham was "hedging her bets" a bit. After all, did she want to burn her bridges with the US, where she had been raised and her parents lived ? She had no problem with abandoning Obama at a young vulnerable age and leaving him with his grandparents to raise. This was clearly far easier to do if Obama had some connection with the US. Maybe she had thought about this in the back of her mind for a while as a possibility.
(4) Perhaps Dunham did not want to go into a big long drawn-out discussion with a school official about being married to a Kenyan student when she was underage and giving birth in a foreign land and being upset with Islamic practices in that foreign land. Particularly if that school official was Muslim, like most school officials in Indonesia probably were and probably are.
(5) Parents want to give their children every advantage. And they will often go to great extents to give them any potential advantage, including moving to foreign countries or even telling a white lie or two. Some parents will work two or three jobs to give their children advantages they did not have, like access to a college education.
Some parents will turn into essentially chauffers, shuttling their children around to soccer practice, ballet, music lessons, club meetings, etc, completely abandoning any private lives they had for their children.
And US citizenship or a connection with the US is perceived to be an advantage. How else does one explain "birth tourism" even, from advanced places like Korea? Is it so hard to believe that Stanley Ann Dunham, who seemed to have a sort of disdain for US rules but still expected to be able to exploit it, would try to retain any potential advantages a connection with the US might offer for her son? After all, Dunham did it for her other two foreign-born children.
(6) Perhaps Dunham had to present some sort of birth documents to the school in Indonesia. And explain why this purportedly Indonesian citizen (who would not be allowed to attend school unless he was an Indonesian citizen, under Indonesian law at that time; recall that he did not begin school until the age of 7 and a half, which is a bit old for a purportedly brilliant student) did not look particularly Indonesian.
Is it so hard to believe that Dunham might have presented a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that showed that Obama was born in Honolulu, which she might have obtained easily to retain some sort of advantage for her son? She did this for her other two foreign-born children, after all. And is it that hard to believe that this document might show an incorrect birthplace for young Obama, since the attestation of only one relative was required at the time to obtain a Hawaiian COLB? Or that there was some fancy paperwork done at the Hawaiian Health Department associated with Obama's foreign birth to give him a COLB that had a Honolulu birth location? Which shows up on the long form vault copy, but not on the short form COLB?
Hawaiian law allows these birth records to be changed retroactively in a number of circumstances. And the Hawaiian law on birth records was particularly lax, clearly.
So is it too hard to imagine that Dunham might have taken advantage of this? Particularly to give an advantage to her child, when she did it for two later foreign-born children as well? Why is that so hard to believe?
(7) There are advantages to having multiple passports and associations with different jurisdictions. For example, Obama might have exploited his Indonesian connection to travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. Might Dunham have wanted to develop and retain these connections with different countries for any potential advantages they offered, for herself and her children?
Of course, this is all just speculation. But I think someone who cannot imagine why Obama's school registration in Indonesia should list his birth location as "Honolulu" if Obama was not born in Honolulu is not using their imagination. And is also willfully ignoring Obama's refusal to verify his Hawaiian birth with a long form birth certificate containing corroborating evidence.
I will point out that if we can trust all official records, then why are there 15-30 million illegal aliens in the US with forged papers? Can we trust the documents they present as their "official records"? What about the 911 hijackers that used forged documents? Could we trust the documents they presented as their "official records"?
In this sort of situation, we need corroborating evidence. Just like that Russian proverb that Ronald Reagan quoted, "trust, but verify". Obama has given us reason enough to want to verify. So we are asking to be allowed to verify. That is all. Why should that upset you so much, little Obot?
Do you think if you tried this trick on the next policeman that pulls you over and asks for your license and registration that it would work? What if the policeman saw you shoving something under the seat as he approached? Do you think that would raise suspicions? You know, in many jurisdictions, if the police see you acting suspiciously, they are allowed to search your car; to investigate further.
Obama is acting suspiciously so we would like to investigate further. Do you have a problem with that? And if you do, why is that?
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
20 Million Letters to the Supreme Court
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=631
CALL TO ACTION - A 20 million letter campaign - DO IT NOW!!!!!!
This is our final chance to right this wrong. If you agree, please forward to all those who care. Thank you.
Posted on December 31st, 2008 by David Crockett
Reverend James David Manning has called for people to join a letter writing campaign to the Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court in this video.
Manning is asking that twenty million letters be sent. My letter, as drafted by WND follows. I encourage you to cut, paste, and mail ASAP. For the cost of one stamp, your voice will be heard by Justice Roberts who will sit in conference on January 9th to discuss whether the SCOTUS will hear Philip Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has been scheduled for two [2] Conferences (January 9th and 16th, 2009)… http://www.obamacrimes.com/).
The address is:
Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
RE: PLEASE DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION
Dear Associate Justice Thomas:
If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.
A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States . That statement has clear meaning, and the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the controlling legal authorities in ensuring that the Constitution is enforced – even if doing so may prove awkward.
With the Electoral College set to make its determination Dec. 15 that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. be the next president of the United States, the Supreme Court is holding a conference Friday to review a case challenging his eligibility for the office based on Article 2, Section 1.
I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, at the very least, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States .
If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters, the Supreme Court must use its authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.
There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. It's up to the Supreme Court to dispel all doubt that America 's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States .
I urge you to honor the Constitution in this matter and uphold the public trust.
Sincerely,
Antoinette M. Wisbaum
7040 N. Third Street
Phoenix, AZ 85020
Best Regards,
Netty
CALL TO ACTION - A 20 million letter campaign - DO IT NOW!!!!!!
This is our final chance to right this wrong. If you agree, please forward to all those who care. Thank you.
Posted on December 31st, 2008 by David Crockett
Reverend James David Manning has called for people to join a letter writing campaign to the Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court in this video.
Manning is asking that twenty million letters be sent. My letter, as drafted by WND follows. I encourage you to cut, paste, and mail ASAP. For the cost of one stamp, your voice will be heard by Justice Roberts who will sit in conference on January 9th to discuss whether the SCOTUS will hear Philip Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has been scheduled for two [2] Conferences (January 9th and 16th, 2009)… http://www.obamacrimes.com/).
The address is:
Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
RE: PLEASE DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION
Dear Associate Justice Thomas:
If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.
A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States . That statement has clear meaning, and the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the controlling legal authorities in ensuring that the Constitution is enforced – even if doing so may prove awkward.
With the Electoral College set to make its determination Dec. 15 that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. be the next president of the United States, the Supreme Court is holding a conference Friday to review a case challenging his eligibility for the office based on Article 2, Section 1.
I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, at the very least, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States .
If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters, the Supreme Court must use its authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.
There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. It's up to the Supreme Court to dispel all doubt that America 's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States .
I urge you to honor the Constitution in this matter and uphold the public trust.
Sincerely,
Antoinette M. Wisbaum
7040 N. Third Street
Phoenix, AZ 85020
Best Regards,
Netty
Native Born vs. Natural Born, by a Reader, Robert Stevens
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on television. This is just my view of one aspect of this controversy. Robert Stevens
I have noticed in these discussions and debates on the Obama eligibility controversy, that there is a huge amount of confusion about the different terms and their definitions; that is, "natural born US citizen" is not the same as a "US citizen" which is not the same as a "naturalized US citizen" which is not the same as a "US citizen immediately at birth" which is not the same as a "US national" which is not the same as a "native born US citizen" which is not the same as a "US person", etc. People get these terms all confused, and then get into huge arguments because they are confused and have not obtained the correct definitions beforehand.
Many claim that the SCOTUS case U.S. V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) demonstrates that Obama is a "natural born citizen". The argument is that since Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to non-US parents, SCOTUS declared him to be a "native born citizen". However, SCOTUS did not declare Wong Kim Ark to be a "natural born citizen".
The entire point boils down to the question, is a "native born citizen" a "natural born citizen" or not? Many just want to sweep any potential distinction away and under the rug. However, this might not be appropriate.
I have noticed in these discussions and debates on the Obama eligibility controversy, that there is a huge amount of confusion about the different terms and their definitions; that is, "natural born US citizen" is not the same as a "US citizen" which is not the same as a "naturalized US citizen" which is not the same as a "US citizen immediately at birth" which is not the same as a "US national" which is not the same as a "native born US citizen" which is not the same as a "US person", etc. People get these terms all confused, and then get into huge arguments because they are confused and have not obtained the correct definitions beforehand.
Many claim that the SCOTUS case U.S. V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) demonstrates that Obama is a "natural born citizen". The argument is that since Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to non-US parents, SCOTUS declared him to be a "native born citizen". However, SCOTUS did not declare Wong Kim Ark to be a "natural born citizen".
The entire point boils down to the question, is a "native born citizen" a "natural born citizen" or not? Many just want to sweep any potential distinction away and under the rug. However, this might not be appropriate.
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
No. 08A524
Title:
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:
(S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and
Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008
Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008
Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008
Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz
26302 La Paz
(949) 683-5411
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Counsel of Record
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
No. 08A524
Title:
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct:
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:
(S168690)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and
Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008
Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008
Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008
Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Orly Taitz
26302 La Paz
(949) 683-5411
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Counsel of Record
Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.
An Obot Response to the Soetoro School Records
When I posted the Indonesian school records showing that a Barry Soetoro had registered for school in Indonesia as a Muslim, and was listed as an Indonesian citizen born in Honolulu in a previous blog post, another anonymous Obot responded:
"Robert, One more thing. On the first two docs you provided to support the Soetoro thing, you might want to notice that on both docs, the Place of Birth stated is Honolulu. Seems to me this
contradicts the whole "wasn't born in Hawaii theory", wouldn't it? Also, how old was Obama when this doc was filled out? Did Obama fill it out? Who filled out this doc?
One of my parents is a Baptist and the other is a Catholic. Depending on which parent/guardian filled out one of my docs as a child would determine my Religion. If my Mom filled it out, it would state Baptist. If my Dad filled it out, it would state Catholic. I had no choice in the matter as a minor child."
This Obot seems to want to bring up the religious aspect, doesn’t he? It is true that these forms seem to suggest that Obama was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim. Again, this is a typical Obot effort to distract from the issue at hand. No one has claimed that it is illegal to have a Muslim president of the US, have they?
Also, this form was filled out by a minor child's parents, probably, or maybe by a school official. And yes the birthplace on this form is listed as "Honolulu". So the Obot wants to DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is an Indonesian Citizen and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is a Muslim, and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama's name was Barry Soetoro, but BELIEVE this form when it says Obama was born in Honolulu.
Notice how the Obot likes to cherry-pick the information? According to the Obot, the only valid information is information that makes the "Messiah" look good.
We have no idea how valid this form is. Maybe Obama did not go by the name Barry Soetoro as a child, although this has been confirmed by people that knew him in Indonesia, so that seems unlikely. Maybe Obama was born in Honolulu, but then if he was and his original long form certificate shows it, why has Obama fought efforts to get him to release that information?
You see, dear Anonymous O-bots, when it comes to trying to decide what information in this entire affair we can trust and what we cannot, one has to consider all the evidence as a whole, and look to see what evidence is corroborated and what is contradicted by other evidence and by common sense.
Playing the game the Obot way, the only allowable evidence is evidence that supports the Messiah. Period. All other evidence must be discarded.
"Robert, One more thing. On the first two docs you provided to support the Soetoro thing, you might want to notice that on both docs, the Place of Birth stated is Honolulu. Seems to me this
contradicts the whole "wasn't born in Hawaii theory", wouldn't it? Also, how old was Obama when this doc was filled out? Did Obama fill it out? Who filled out this doc?
One of my parents is a Baptist and the other is a Catholic. Depending on which parent/guardian filled out one of my docs as a child would determine my Religion. If my Mom filled it out, it would state Baptist. If my Dad filled it out, it would state Catholic. I had no choice in the matter as a minor child."
This Obot seems to want to bring up the religious aspect, doesn’t he? It is true that these forms seem to suggest that Obama was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim. Again, this is a typical Obot effort to distract from the issue at hand. No one has claimed that it is illegal to have a Muslim president of the US, have they?
Also, this form was filled out by a minor child's parents, probably, or maybe by a school official. And yes the birthplace on this form is listed as "Honolulu". So the Obot wants to DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is an Indonesian Citizen and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama is a Muslim, and DISBELIEVE this form when it says Obama's name was Barry Soetoro, but BELIEVE this form when it says Obama was born in Honolulu.
Notice how the Obot likes to cherry-pick the information? According to the Obot, the only valid information is information that makes the "Messiah" look good.
We have no idea how valid this form is. Maybe Obama did not go by the name Barry Soetoro as a child, although this has been confirmed by people that knew him in Indonesia, so that seems unlikely. Maybe Obama was born in Honolulu, but then if he was and his original long form certificate shows it, why has Obama fought efforts to get him to release that information?
You see, dear Anonymous O-bots, when it comes to trying to decide what information in this entire affair we can trust and what we cannot, one has to consider all the evidence as a whole, and look to see what evidence is corroborated and what is contradicted by other evidence and by common sense.
Playing the game the Obot way, the only allowable evidence is evidence that supports the Messiah. Period. All other evidence must be discarded.
An Obot Racist
Here is a new comment from another anonymous Obot on this blog:
It is entertaining watching you racist idiots piss and moan about nonsense.
Actually, someone who is frantic to have different laws applied to Barack Obama because he has brown skin is the racist. Do you have a problem with applying the laws of the US equally to all people, regardless of race or sex or religious affiliation?
It is entertaining watching you racist idiots piss and moan about nonsense.
Actually, someone who is frantic to have different laws applied to Barack Obama because he has brown skin is the racist. Do you have a problem with applying the laws of the US equally to all people, regardless of race or sex or religious affiliation?
The Courier Times - New Castle, IN | New Castle Man Sues Over Barack Obama's Eligibility
Saturday, December 27, 2008
With less than a month before Barack Obama's inauguration, a New Castle man says he's not so sure the president-elect is eligible for the position.
Steve Ankeny of New Castle and Bill Kruse of Roselawn have filed a lawsuit challenging Obama's status as a natural-born citizen of the United States. It also states that Obama wasn't eligible to be a presidential candidate be-cause he was a sitting U.S. senator. The suit was filed in Marion Superior Court and names Gov. Mitch Daniels as well as the Democratic and Republican national committees as defendants.
Ankeny, a self-employed legal researcher, said he isn't taking a political stance with the lawsuit. All he's asking is that proper evidence be provided to certify that Obama, or any candidate, is eligible according to the Constitution, he said.
'It's not that we want to overturn the election of Barack Obama,' he said. 'It's that we want the laws, starting with the Constitution, to be upheld.'"
A Trip to DC
Yesterday, "TC" and I went on an expedition to DC to inspect the "certificates of votes" that are publicly available for examination at the National Register. I know that the certificates of votes of 24 jurisdictions have been scanned in on the web as of this writing, but that still leaves 27 un-scanned (since DC also gets 3 electoral college votes). So, after receiving some conflicting and confusing and contradictory stories from the National Register about the missing jurisdictions (even on the "deadline", December 24, 2008), as well as an invitation to come and look, I went.
The security was pretty tight in the building. But the people were nice. They were quite surprised to see us actually. In the entire time that the "certificates of votes" have been available in DC this election cycle, TC and I were the only members of the public to show up to look at them. The National Register was caught off-guard and with a skeleton crew. They had to pull a couple of people off other tasks to have them babysit us and the certificates while we examined them. We even got a very senior manager and lawyer to sit with us for hours and hours. I suspect that probably we were the only citizens to visit this office in the last couple of election cycles to inspect these certificates.
This does not bode well for our constitutional republic. People, we need to keep on top of the government to make sure they are doing their jobs. We need to make sure that no funny business is going on, such as letting dead people be electors (like Ilene Huber in California) or ineligible candidates on the ballot (like Roger Calero [1], and very possibly, Barack Obama - and some might argue, even John McCain). We need to double check these bureaucrats, who work for us. We need them to know we are looking over their shoulders. And we need to complain to our elected representatives. Plenty. If this is important to us, we need to let them know. Otherwise, they will just let it slide. Just look at the ridiculous responses we have had from elected representatives so far on this Obama eligibility issue. Look at the responses we have had from Secretaries of State and other state election officials when we have asked them about who determines the eligibility of the candidates standing for election, even in states which have election laws which require them to do this.
So far, over half of the states have responded that they do not check that the candidates meet the requirements. Anyway, we found that the certificates of two states were "missing", much to the embarrassment of the National Register people (Nebraska and Georgia). They will try to round those up. The certificates came in an astounding variety of formats, since there is no uniform required format. Although I think in some ways our expedition was a waste of time, in other ways it was quite valuable. It was a signal to the National Register that there are citizens who still are watching. And will make sure that the law is followed.
If we do not exercise our rights, pretty quickly we will find we have lost them. And this election is a perfect example of that. We depend on our political system with two strong political parties to keep an eye on each other, but clearly this election is an example where this system failed a bit (just look at the responses we received from elected representatives, both Democrat and Republican). And look at the response of our once very dependable mainstream media and
investigative journalists. This watchdog body has turned into a paper tiger; even the conservative media have basically given up on this one. And that is how this unbelievable situation has developed.
I found that the metro tickets in DC now feature the image of Barack Obama. That is absolutely amazing! I bet that this has not been done for any previous president about to be inaugurated. His picture is everywhere in DC actually. People are besides themselves with pride over his election. Is this how a cult of personality starts? I heard one of the commentators on ABC's This Week program last Sunday predicting glibly that Barack Obama will have an extraordinarily long "honeymoon period". The commentators were almost universally ecstatic, bordering on orgasmic, about the prospect of Barack Obama taking office.
This is at the same time that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is arresting Obama associates and all kinds of troubling questions exist. Fitzgerald has even asked to leave the period for indictments open for another 90 days to give him time to investigate, which is well into Obama's term. Interestingly, Governor Blagojevich's lawyer was as quiet as a churchmouse about this development. What does that tell us? Obviously, more is going on here than meets the eye. Lots more.
I guess Fitzgerald is asking to be a "special prosecutor" and not be terminated, which is what would happen normally when an administration changes. This would have to be a first; a new president that starts off his presidency with a special prosecutor already going after him. A new president with over 20 active lawsuits challenging his eligibility in the courts, and more coming. A new president that gives every sign of having taken the election through massive fraud. A new president that has prompted numerous states to consider changing their election laws, specially designed to keep someone perpetrating this kind of hoax off the ballot.
And this is supposed to lead to an extraordinarily long honeymoon? Well I guess I will believe it when I see it.
The security was pretty tight in the building. But the people were nice. They were quite surprised to see us actually. In the entire time that the "certificates of votes" have been available in DC this election cycle, TC and I were the only members of the public to show up to look at them. The National Register was caught off-guard and with a skeleton crew. They had to pull a couple of people off other tasks to have them babysit us and the certificates while we examined them. We even got a very senior manager and lawyer to sit with us for hours and hours. I suspect that probably we were the only citizens to visit this office in the last couple of election cycles to inspect these certificates.
This does not bode well for our constitutional republic. People, we need to keep on top of the government to make sure they are doing their jobs. We need to make sure that no funny business is going on, such as letting dead people be electors (like Ilene Huber in California) or ineligible candidates on the ballot (like Roger Calero [1], and very possibly, Barack Obama - and some might argue, even John McCain). We need to double check these bureaucrats, who work for us. We need them to know we are looking over their shoulders. And we need to complain to our elected representatives. Plenty. If this is important to us, we need to let them know. Otherwise, they will just let it slide. Just look at the ridiculous responses we have had from elected representatives so far on this Obama eligibility issue. Look at the responses we have had from Secretaries of State and other state election officials when we have asked them about who determines the eligibility of the candidates standing for election, even in states which have election laws which require them to do this.
So far, over half of the states have responded that they do not check that the candidates meet the requirements. Anyway, we found that the certificates of two states were "missing", much to the embarrassment of the National Register people (Nebraska and Georgia). They will try to round those up. The certificates came in an astounding variety of formats, since there is no uniform required format. Although I think in some ways our expedition was a waste of time, in other ways it was quite valuable. It was a signal to the National Register that there are citizens who still are watching. And will make sure that the law is followed.
If we do not exercise our rights, pretty quickly we will find we have lost them. And this election is a perfect example of that. We depend on our political system with two strong political parties to keep an eye on each other, but clearly this election is an example where this system failed a bit (just look at the responses we received from elected representatives, both Democrat and Republican). And look at the response of our once very dependable mainstream media and
investigative journalists. This watchdog body has turned into a paper tiger; even the conservative media have basically given up on this one. And that is how this unbelievable situation has developed.
I found that the metro tickets in DC now feature the image of Barack Obama. That is absolutely amazing! I bet that this has not been done for any previous president about to be inaugurated. His picture is everywhere in DC actually. People are besides themselves with pride over his election. Is this how a cult of personality starts? I heard one of the commentators on ABC's This Week program last Sunday predicting glibly that Barack Obama will have an extraordinarily long "honeymoon period". The commentators were almost universally ecstatic, bordering on orgasmic, about the prospect of Barack Obama taking office.
This is at the same time that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is arresting Obama associates and all kinds of troubling questions exist. Fitzgerald has even asked to leave the period for indictments open for another 90 days to give him time to investigate, which is well into Obama's term. Interestingly, Governor Blagojevich's lawyer was as quiet as a churchmouse about this development. What does that tell us? Obviously, more is going on here than meets the eye. Lots more.
I guess Fitzgerald is asking to be a "special prosecutor" and not be terminated, which is what would happen normally when an administration changes. This would have to be a first; a new president that starts off his presidency with a special prosecutor already going after him. A new president with over 20 active lawsuits challenging his eligibility in the courts, and more coming. A new president that gives every sign of having taken the election through massive fraud. A new president that has prompted numerous states to consider changing their election laws, specially designed to keep someone perpetrating this kind of hoax off the ballot.
And this is supposed to lead to an extraordinarily long honeymoon? Well I guess I will believe it when I see it.
Congressional Hall of Shame
I have been diligently collecting responses to inquiries about the Obama Eligibility Controversy from members of both the House and the Senate and placing them on a web page for inspection. So far I have responses from 8 senators and 3 congress members.
Clearly they are playing their constituents for fools. For example, if you look at Senate Resolution 511, unanimously adopted by the Senate on April 30, 2008, the Senate suggests that a citizen with two US citizen parents is a "natural born citizen". Interesting how none of these responses mention Senate Resolution 511 or any of the legal analyses by Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe or others that were part of the discussion in the Senate. Many of them include nonsense about when Hawaii became a state, as if that was a misunderstanding of their "stupid constituents". We have to make them aware that we are not fools and that we are paying attention to
them and their statements and actions.
I will be adding contact information for each of these members of Congress and senators to that web page. Then we can give them feedback easily.
If you have a response from a member of Congress or a Senator you want to add to the page, feel free to do so since it is a wiki, or send it to me at hound9_9 at yahoo dot com.
Thanks.
Robert Stevens
Clearly they are playing their constituents for fools. For example, if you look at Senate Resolution 511, unanimously adopted by the Senate on April 30, 2008, the Senate suggests that a citizen with two US citizen parents is a "natural born citizen". Interesting how none of these responses mention Senate Resolution 511 or any of the legal analyses by Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe or others that were part of the discussion in the Senate. Many of them include nonsense about when Hawaii became a state, as if that was a misunderstanding of their "stupid constituents". We have to make them aware that we are not fools and that we are paying attention to
them and their statements and actions.
I will be adding contact information for each of these members of Congress and senators to that web page. Then we can give them feedback easily.
If you have a response from a member of Congress or a Senator you want to add to the page, feel free to do so since it is a wiki, or send it to me at hound9_9 at yahoo dot com.
Thanks.
Robert Stevens
A 20 Million Letter Campaign
Reverend James David Manning has called for people to join a letter writing campaign to the Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court in this video.
Dr. Manning is asking that twenty million letters be sent. The address is
Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
Dr. Manning is asking that twenty million letters be sent. The address is
Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543
An Email Battle
I have had a short glimpse at a long-running email battle between an Orly fan known as "BobJen" and "John", who purports to be a lawyer. John writes long long emails to BobJen, arguing that there is no question that Barack Obama is eligible to assume the Presidency and that this entire controversy about his eligibility is silly.
I have to wonder why "John" is so frantic that he spends so much time and effort defending Obama. Here is one of the recent emails "John" sent to BobJen:
I performed research to respond to the question: Why doesn't Barack Obama release his "original birth certificate?" The answer is: he doesn't have to. Why? Because the birth record that he obtained and posted on the campaign website, entitled Certification of Live Birth, is competent evidence, admissible in the courts of the United States as a valid public record for the truth of the information contained in the document, which includes the date and place of birth.
The authority for its admissibility is found in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Hawaiian statutes governing birth records:
1. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(9) provides that "Records or data compilations in any form of births, fetal deaths,, deaths or marriages, if the report there was was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law," are not hearsay and are therefore admissible in evidence for the proof of the information they contain (Copy attached).
a. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-5 provides that it is a requirement of law to report every birth to the Department of Health" "within the time prescribed by the department of health, a
certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred..."(Copy attached).
b. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-12 provides that certificates shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. (Copy attached).
c. Hawaii Revised Statues section 338-13 provides that the Department of Health shall upon request furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof (Copy attached).
2. Federal Rule of Evidence 902 provides that such a record is self-authenticating if it bears the seal of any state or agency of a state and a signature purporting to be an attestation or an execution. The record is also self -authenticating if it has the signature of an officer or employee of a state or agency thereof if the officer certifies that the signer has the official capacity and the signature is genuine.
The copy of the birth record ("Certification of Live Birth") on the Fact Check.org website contains the seal of Hawaii and the attestation of Alvin T. Onaka stating "I certify this is a true copy orabstract of the record on file at the Hawaii State Department of Health." (Copy of FactCheck.org posting is attached; See also PoliticFact.org posting, copy attached: these are non-partisan organizations and not the Obama campaign). This is sufficient to authenticate the document under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Further, Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-19 states that the department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic or microphotographic copies of any records an files in its office and such copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original.
in the case of Inoue v Inoue, 118 Haw. 86 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2008), the court concluded that the information regarding who fathered a child in the Certification of Live Birth was admissible and conclusive proof of paternity. (If you want the case, I'll send it, but it's long).
Based upon these legal authorities, the Certification of Live Birth is valid and admissible evidence that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961,
There is no competent evidence that the birth record is not true:
1. I have seen references to the requirements of the Hawaiian Homelands Program. The form for applying for that program says that an applicant should use a complete Certificate of Live Birth rather than a Certification of Live Birth. Why? Because to participate in that program you have to prove more than you were born in the State of Hawaii. You have to prove that you are a native Hawaiian defined as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778". This is not a requirement for the Presidency of the United States or to be a natural born citizen. It is a special requirement where one needs to provide his/hergenealogy. (Copy attached).
2. I have seen references to certificates for children born out of state which can be issued under Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-17.8, But that statute does not say that you can have a certificate issued that states a child was born in Hawaii when the child was not born in Hawaii. I have seen references to the fact an amended birth record or certificate can be issued, but that statute says only if the person was born in Hawaii. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-17,7
3. I have seen references claiming that Obama's paternal grandmother says he was born in Kenya. That is pure hearsay. I have seen no statement or testimony from her under oath. Statements of others claiming she made these statements are not competent, admissible evidence,
4. There is no evidence whatsoever that his mother ever even travelled to Africa.
5. When one applies for a birth record, there is no distinction between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth (See Instructions and Form for "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record" attached).
(By the way, you are a friend but if you were a client, this research would cost a lot of money).
On the use of names issue, I saw copies of Obama's drivers license, marriage license and Illinois State Bar registration record (like the on a website. In each of them he uses the name, Barack H. Obama or Barack Hussein Obama.
Where did he use other names?
.....
Best regards,
John
The COLB presented purports to be prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, but unfortunately, there is contradictory evidence that makes one question the authenticity of this COLB .
John claims that Onaka has signed the presented COLB and affirmed that it is accurate. So if Onaka did this, and Onaka stands by that, why did the press release made by Onaka's organization not confirm this? Seems like an obvious thing to do, since that is what everyone is asking for. Over and over. And not just informally, but in court proceedings. In multiple legal venues
If Onaka had confirmed that Obama's presented COLB showing that Obama was born in Hawaii was a true likeness and all information on this COLB was consistent with the long form original certificate on file with the Hawaii Health Department, probably 99 percent of this controversy would have evaporated. Instead, this press release raised even more questions because of what it did not state, and what Onaka and others at the Hawaiian Health Department have declined or refused to state.
John does bring up the argument that the COLB is not even good enough to participate in many Hawaiian government programs. If that is correct, which it appears to be, why should the COLB be accepted to show eligibility for the presidency? I certainly know a COLB would not get you a US government clearance, for example.
Obama is being hired to work for us, the citizens of this country. And as his employers, if we want to see that Obama is eligible for the job, then Obama should show us what we need to make sure we are comfortable that he is eligible and meets the requirements. It is that simple.
Several courts have issued subpoenas on the basis that the COLB is inadequate to show that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. So this "email lawyer" knows more than those judges?
The problem is, Obama can refuse to show his long form copy all he wants. And Obama might even get away with it with Congress and with SCOTUS and other courts. But Obama is losing in the court of public opinion. And that is the most important court for Obama to be concerned about, since Obama is a politician.
At least one state is instituting new rules requiring that all candidates on the ballot be vetted properly and requiring that all candidates show that they are eligible to participate (a little belated but perfectly reasonable for them to request this). If Obama continues to be unwilling to show his documents, then Obama will not get a second 4 year term. Obama might not even make it all the way through his first 4 year term if things turn against him badly enough.
And Obama will have to deal with what has happened to his public image in the meantime. And for a politician, his public image is the most precious resource he has. Already there are signs Obama's public image is badly tarnished [1][2][3]. And I predict it will get worse.
On this eligibility issue, if Obama is eligible, Obama is causing himself and the country problems unnecessarily if what Obama and "John" allege is correct. Why would Obama do that?
Other names
John, since you seem to not be aware of Obama's use of other names, take a look at these:
I have to wonder why "John" is so frantic that he spends so much time and effort defending Obama. Here is one of the recent emails "John" sent to BobJen:
I performed research to respond to the question: Why doesn't Barack Obama release his "original birth certificate?" The answer is: he doesn't have to. Why? Because the birth record that he obtained and posted on the campaign website, entitled Certification of Live Birth, is competent evidence, admissible in the courts of the United States as a valid public record for the truth of the information contained in the document, which includes the date and place of birth.
The authority for its admissibility is found in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Hawaiian statutes governing birth records:
1. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(9) provides that "Records or data compilations in any form of births, fetal deaths,, deaths or marriages, if the report there was was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law," are not hearsay and are therefore admissible in evidence for the proof of the information they contain (Copy attached).
a. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-5 provides that it is a requirement of law to report every birth to the Department of Health" "within the time prescribed by the department of health, a
certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred..."(Copy attached).
b. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-12 provides that certificates shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. (Copy attached).
c. Hawaii Revised Statues section 338-13 provides that the Department of Health shall upon request furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof (Copy attached).
2. Federal Rule of Evidence 902 provides that such a record is self-authenticating if it bears the seal of any state or agency of a state and a signature purporting to be an attestation or an execution. The record is also self -authenticating if it has the signature of an officer or employee of a state or agency thereof if the officer certifies that the signer has the official capacity and the signature is genuine.
The copy of the birth record ("Certification of Live Birth") on the Fact Check.org website contains the seal of Hawaii and the attestation of Alvin T. Onaka stating "I certify this is a true copy orabstract of the record on file at the Hawaii State Department of Health." (Copy of FactCheck.org posting is attached; See also PoliticFact.org posting, copy attached: these are non-partisan organizations and not the Obama campaign). This is sufficient to authenticate the document under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Further, Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-19 states that the department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic or microphotographic copies of any records an files in its office and such copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original.
in the case of Inoue v Inoue, 118 Haw. 86 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2008), the court concluded that the information regarding who fathered a child in the Certification of Live Birth was admissible and conclusive proof of paternity. (If you want the case, I'll send it, but it's long).
Based upon these legal authorities, the Certification of Live Birth is valid and admissible evidence that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961,
There is no competent evidence that the birth record is not true:
1. I have seen references to the requirements of the Hawaiian Homelands Program. The form for applying for that program says that an applicant should use a complete Certificate of Live Birth rather than a Certification of Live Birth. Why? Because to participate in that program you have to prove more than you were born in the State of Hawaii. You have to prove that you are a native Hawaiian defined as "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778". This is not a requirement for the Presidency of the United States or to be a natural born citizen. It is a special requirement where one needs to provide his/hergenealogy. (Copy attached).
2. I have seen references to certificates for children born out of state which can be issued under Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-17.8, But that statute does not say that you can have a certificate issued that states a child was born in Hawaii when the child was not born in Hawaii. I have seen references to the fact an amended birth record or certificate can be issued, but that statute says only if the person was born in Hawaii. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 338-17,7
3. I have seen references claiming that Obama's paternal grandmother says he was born in Kenya. That is pure hearsay. I have seen no statement or testimony from her under oath. Statements of others claiming she made these statements are not competent, admissible evidence,
4. There is no evidence whatsoever that his mother ever even travelled to Africa.
5. When one applies for a birth record, there is no distinction between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth (See Instructions and Form for "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record" attached).
(By the way, you are a friend but if you were a client, this research would cost a lot of money).
On the use of names issue, I saw copies of Obama's drivers license, marriage license and Illinois State Bar registration record (like the on a website. In each of them he uses the name, Barack H. Obama or Barack Hussein Obama.
Where did he use other names?
.....
Best regards,
John
The COLB presented purports to be prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, but unfortunately, there is contradictory evidence that makes one question the authenticity of this COLB .
John claims that Onaka has signed the presented COLB and affirmed that it is accurate. So if Onaka did this, and Onaka stands by that, why did the press release made by Onaka's organization not confirm this? Seems like an obvious thing to do, since that is what everyone is asking for. Over and over. And not just informally, but in court proceedings. In multiple legal venues
If Onaka had confirmed that Obama's presented COLB showing that Obama was born in Hawaii was a true likeness and all information on this COLB was consistent with the long form original certificate on file with the Hawaii Health Department, probably 99 percent of this controversy would have evaporated. Instead, this press release raised even more questions because of what it did not state, and what Onaka and others at the Hawaiian Health Department have declined or refused to state.
John does bring up the argument that the COLB is not even good enough to participate in many Hawaiian government programs. If that is correct, which it appears to be, why should the COLB be accepted to show eligibility for the presidency? I certainly know a COLB would not get you a US government clearance, for example.
Obama is being hired to work for us, the citizens of this country. And as his employers, if we want to see that Obama is eligible for the job, then Obama should show us what we need to make sure we are comfortable that he is eligible and meets the requirements. It is that simple.
Several courts have issued subpoenas on the basis that the COLB is inadequate to show that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. So this "email lawyer" knows more than those judges?
The problem is, Obama can refuse to show his long form copy all he wants. And Obama might even get away with it with Congress and with SCOTUS and other courts. But Obama is losing in the court of public opinion. And that is the most important court for Obama to be concerned about, since Obama is a politician.
At least one state is instituting new rules requiring that all candidates on the ballot be vetted properly and requiring that all candidates show that they are eligible to participate (a little belated but perfectly reasonable for them to request this). If Obama continues to be unwilling to show his documents, then Obama will not get a second 4 year term. Obama might not even make it all the way through his first 4 year term if things turn against him badly enough.
And Obama will have to deal with what has happened to his public image in the meantime. And for a politician, his public image is the most precious resource he has. Already there are signs Obama's public image is badly tarnished [1][2][3]. And I predict it will get worse.
On this eligibility issue, if Obama is eligible, Obama is causing himself and the country problems unnecessarily if what Obama and "John" allege is correct. Why would Obama do that?
Other names
John, since you seem to not be aware of Obama's use of other names, take a look at these:
Obama Has Not Met His Burden of Proving He Was Born in Hawaii
By now, many of us know about the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama posted on the internet in June 2008 as proof that he was born in Hawaii. This document was touted by fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org as sufficient proof that he was born in Hawaii. Later on we learned about Hawaiian law in effect at the time of Obama's birth that allowed parents or guardians of babies born in a foreign country to register the foreign births in Hawaii and to receive a COLB as evidence of that registration. We also learned that only the original Certificate of Live Birth (BC), issued by the birth hospital, provides, among other things, the name of the hospital where a baby was born and the name of the attending physician that delivered the baby. We learned that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (a state agency that happens to detail the difference) states:
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
After learning this information many concerned Americans had doubts about whether the COLB was sufficient proof that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. But apart from the lax Hawaii law, there is another important point to understand about the COLB.
If one reads the document, one will see that at the bottom it states: "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
The important words here are "prima facie evidence." "Prima facie" is a Latin phrase meaning "on its first appearance" or "by first instance." It is evidence which is adequate, if not invalidated, to confirm a particular intention or fact. It is evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted. A prima facie case may be insufficient to enable a party to prevail if the opposing party introduces contradictory evidence. In other words, it basically means that on the face of it or on the surface there is enough evidence to prove the alleged fact, unless and until the alleged fact is contradicted.
What does all this mean? Obama has presented his COLB has proof that he was born in Hawaii. That document itself states that it is only "prima facie" evidence of that fact. As we have seen under the definition of "prima facie," the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented. When evidence contradicting the alleged fact is presented, the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence.
Many concerned Americans have provided the public domain with evidence which contradicts the COLB's statement that Obama was born in Hawaii. They have presented the following: the existence of the lax Hawaiian law that existed at the time Obama was born which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii;
Obama's grandmother's statement that her grandson was born in Kenya and that she was present during that birth; the Kenya Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008 during a radio interview with Detroit radio talkshow hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction; the conflicting statements of Obama and his sister concerning in which Hawaiian hospital he was born; the failure of any Hawaiian hospital to confirm that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu; Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures", but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii; fightthesmears.com's and factcheck.org's current silence on the issue; the lack of any other corroborating document showing that Obama was born in Hawaii; the refusal of Obama to release for inspection his past documents (college and law school records and passports) which would shed some light as to where he was born; the failure of Obama to declare publicly after his COLB has been put into question that he was born in Hawaii; and Obama relying on state privacy laws to block the release of a certified copy of his birth certificate.
This mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall. Obama therefore now has the burden to come forward with competent evidence to prove that he was born in Hawaii. To date, he has failed to come forward with that evidence.
Hence, under these circumstances, how can the American people in good faith conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii which makes him a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to be President? How can Obama in good conscience take the oath to be President on January 20th when so many Americans have put forward all this contradictory evidence regarding where he was born and he refuses to come forward with any other convincing evidence (like a certified copy of his original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii?
Obama should do the right thing for everyone's sake and produce the evidence of where he was born.
(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
December 31, 2008
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
After learning this information many concerned Americans had doubts about whether the COLB was sufficient proof that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. But apart from the lax Hawaii law, there is another important point to understand about the COLB.
If one reads the document, one will see that at the bottom it states: "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."
The important words here are "prima facie evidence." "Prima facie" is a Latin phrase meaning "on its first appearance" or "by first instance." It is evidence which is adequate, if not invalidated, to confirm a particular intention or fact. It is evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted. A prima facie case may be insufficient to enable a party to prevail if the opposing party introduces contradictory evidence. In other words, it basically means that on the face of it or on the surface there is enough evidence to prove the alleged fact, unless and until the alleged fact is contradicted.
What does all this mean? Obama has presented his COLB has proof that he was born in Hawaii. That document itself states that it is only "prima facie" evidence of that fact. As we have seen under the definition of "prima facie," the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented. When evidence contradicting the alleged fact is presented, the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence.
Many concerned Americans have provided the public domain with evidence which contradicts the COLB's statement that Obama was born in Hawaii. They have presented the following: the existence of the lax Hawaiian law that existed at the time Obama was born which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii;
Obama's grandmother's statement that her grandson was born in Kenya and that she was present during that birth; the Kenya Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008 during a radio interview with Detroit radio talkshow hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction; the conflicting statements of Obama and his sister concerning in which Hawaiian hospital he was born; the failure of any Hawaiian hospital to confirm that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu; Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures", but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii; fightthesmears.com's and factcheck.org's current silence on the issue; the lack of any other corroborating document showing that Obama was born in Hawaii; the refusal of Obama to release for inspection his past documents (college and law school records and passports) which would shed some light as to where he was born; the failure of Obama to declare publicly after his COLB has been put into question that he was born in Hawaii; and Obama relying on state privacy laws to block the release of a certified copy of his birth certificate.
This mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall. Obama therefore now has the burden to come forward with competent evidence to prove that he was born in Hawaii. To date, he has failed to come forward with that evidence.
Hence, under these circumstances, how can the American people in good faith conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii which makes him a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to be President? How can Obama in good conscience take the oath to be President on January 20th when so many Americans have put forward all this contradictory evidence regarding where he was born and he refuses to come forward with any other convincing evidence (like a certified copy of his original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii?
Obama should do the right thing for everyone's sake and produce the evidence of where he was born.
(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Discussion With a Staffer
I had an email exchange with Jon Yoshimura, who works for Senator Akaka of Hawaii.
I sent him an email about Senate Resolution 511 and the AOL informal survey:
In Senate Resolution 511 unanimously adopted earlier this year, the Senate affirmed that to be a natural born citizen, one must be the child of two American citizen parents. Are they going to ignore their own resolution?
Senators must stand up and address the Obama Eligibility Controversy on January 8, 2009, or voters will respond by removing them using the power of the ballot box. After all, an informal AOL poll of over 100,000 reveals that 53 percent of respondents, from every state, think that Obama eligibility is in question:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamasbirth-certificate/5
Even more than half of the respondents from Hawaii felt there was a question about Obama's eligibility.
Here is a special message to all Senators:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOA5WSUDmE
Senators have to understand that the public expects them to live up to their oath of office to defend the constitution, or else suffer the consequences.
and he was quite doubtful:
If you want me to take you seriously, you must stop mis-stating/ignoring the facts. You said: "In Senate Resolution 511 unanimously adopted earlier this year, the Senate affirmed that to be a natural born citizen, one must be the child of two American citizen parents".
This is simply incorrect. Senate Resolution. 511, ironically, cosponsored by then-Senator Obama, acknowledges Senator John McCain's eligibility to run for President as a "natural born Citizen. " It confirms that Senator McCain was born to "American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone," but creates no requirement that in order to be a natural born citizen your parents must both be American citizens.
You also point to a survey on AOL that suggests that a majority of Americans think that the President-elect's eligibility is in question. Besides the fact that this survey is not being conducted in a scientific manner according to accepted polling guidelines, I believe that most Americans believe otherwise and have already come to the correct conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen. Thus, the only ones responding to the survey are those who are being led to it by individuals and organizations who want to keep the issue on life support. For example, although I am somewhat well read, this is the first I heard of the survey and I wouldn't have come across it without your prompting.
Please stop this deliberate campaign of misinformation which preys on the ignorance of those without access to legitimate information...or...if you wish...continue to waste your time.
Anyway, I mean you no ill-will. Thank you for writing me and I hope you find time to have a happy holidays!
Sincerely,
Jon Yoshimura
I responded that
Greetings Jon:
Well Mr. Yoshimura, perhaps you are correct.
I just wonder why President-elect Obama would rather spend considerable sums of money in court, rather than produce the documents that would settle this matter.
He is creating ill will and suspicions unnecessarily and might take office with a dark cloud over his administration. There is no good reason to do this.
Robert Stevens
To which he replied
I agree. He should put this matter to rest.
And therein lies the crux of the matter; the lynchpin. It is not that the AOL informal survey is so compelling or that Senate Resolution 511 contains earth-shattering revelations. It is not that the paternal Grandmother's account is so convincing and her story might not be the result of mis-translation, or confusion, or faulty memory, or senility, or any number of other potential explanations. It is not that the reports of the forensic document experts are completely damning. It is not that the apparent inconsistencies on Obama's Selective Service Registration form could not be explained away. It is not that there might not be some reasonable justification for Obama not releasing his college and law school records. And so on and so forth.
It is the sum total of all these issues, coupled with one VERY IMPORTANT inconsistency in this entire account:
When Berg called Obama's bluff, Obama did not resolve the controversy quickly and cheaply and easily. And when others have piled on, and things have become even more suspicious, with more lawsuits, Obama has not made all these challenges go away, which Obama could very easily if what Obama has maintained all along is correct.
The tone of the discussion has become more strident. The amount of speculation has increased. The rumors have spread further and further.
And all because Obama did not take all the air out of this months ago.
You have to ask yourself, why?
I sent him an email about Senate Resolution 511 and the AOL informal survey:
In Senate Resolution 511 unanimously adopted earlier this year, the Senate affirmed that to be a natural born citizen, one must be the child of two American citizen parents. Are they going to ignore their own resolution?
Senators must stand up and address the Obama Eligibility Controversy on January 8, 2009, or voters will respond by removing them using the power of the ballot box. After all, an informal AOL poll of over 100,000 reveals that 53 percent of respondents, from every state, think that Obama eligibility is in question:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamasbirth-certificate/5
Even more than half of the respondents from Hawaii felt there was a question about Obama's eligibility.
Here is a special message to all Senators:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOA5WSUDmE
Senators have to understand that the public expects them to live up to their oath of office to defend the constitution, or else suffer the consequences.
and he was quite doubtful:
If you want me to take you seriously, you must stop mis-stating/ignoring the facts. You said: "In Senate Resolution 511 unanimously adopted earlier this year, the Senate affirmed that to be a natural born citizen, one must be the child of two American citizen parents".
This is simply incorrect. Senate Resolution. 511, ironically, cosponsored by then-Senator Obama, acknowledges Senator John McCain's eligibility to run for President as a "natural born Citizen. " It confirms that Senator McCain was born to "American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone," but creates no requirement that in order to be a natural born citizen your parents must both be American citizens.
You also point to a survey on AOL that suggests that a majority of Americans think that the President-elect's eligibility is in question. Besides the fact that this survey is not being conducted in a scientific manner according to accepted polling guidelines, I believe that most Americans believe otherwise and have already come to the correct conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen. Thus, the only ones responding to the survey are those who are being led to it by individuals and organizations who want to keep the issue on life support. For example, although I am somewhat well read, this is the first I heard of the survey and I wouldn't have come across it without your prompting.
Please stop this deliberate campaign of misinformation which preys on the ignorance of those without access to legitimate information...or...if you wish...continue to waste your time.
Anyway, I mean you no ill-will. Thank you for writing me and I hope you find time to have a happy holidays!
Sincerely,
Jon Yoshimura
I responded that
Greetings Jon:
Well Mr. Yoshimura, perhaps you are correct.
I just wonder why President-elect Obama would rather spend considerable sums of money in court, rather than produce the documents that would settle this matter.
He is creating ill will and suspicions unnecessarily and might take office with a dark cloud over his administration. There is no good reason to do this.
Robert Stevens
To which he replied
I agree. He should put this matter to rest.
And therein lies the crux of the matter; the lynchpin. It is not that the AOL informal survey is so compelling or that Senate Resolution 511 contains earth-shattering revelations. It is not that the paternal Grandmother's account is so convincing and her story might not be the result of mis-translation, or confusion, or faulty memory, or senility, or any number of other potential explanations. It is not that the reports of the forensic document experts are completely damning. It is not that the apparent inconsistencies on Obama's Selective Service Registration form could not be explained away. It is not that there might not be some reasonable justification for Obama not releasing his college and law school records. And so on and so forth.
It is the sum total of all these issues, coupled with one VERY IMPORTANT inconsistency in this entire account:
When Berg called Obama's bluff, Obama did not resolve the controversy quickly and cheaply and easily. And when others have piled on, and things have become even more suspicious, with more lawsuits, Obama has not made all these challenges go away, which Obama could very easily if what Obama has maintained all along is correct.
The tone of the discussion has become more strident. The amount of speculation has increased. The rumors have spread further and further.
And all because Obama did not take all the air out of this months ago.
You have to ask yourself, why?
Sunday, December 28, 2008
A Message to Ron Paul
Here is an email I sent to Congressman Ron Paul and his congressional aides:
I was very disappointed to hear that Ron Paul had recently said to a constituent that no one cared if Barack Obama was eligible to take office or not, and that both houses of Congress intended to approve his candidacy even if he was ineligible.
Ron Paul said he was concerned about looking bad in front of the other politicians apparently, according to this broadcast account:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1ywGkajMQ
I am stunned that Ron Paul would make this kind of comment. Taking this position is going to cost him much more than he could ever imagine.
I am very concerned that Barack Obama is ineligible for office. Here is a message to members of Congress on this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOA5WSUDmE
A chart summarizing the problem can be found at
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pzydj617-o0/SUFA78DPQtI/AAAAAAAAAfY/XUDOMRyXolk/s1600-h/naturalborncitizenchart.jpg
Thank you
Robert Stevens
Please consider joining me in expressing your concerns to Congressman Ron Paul
POSTED BY ROBERT STEVENS AT 11:52 AM
I was very disappointed to hear that Ron Paul had recently said to a constituent that no one cared if Barack Obama was eligible to take office or not, and that both houses of Congress intended to approve his candidacy even if he was ineligible.
Ron Paul said he was concerned about looking bad in front of the other politicians apparently, according to this broadcast account:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1ywGkajMQ
I am stunned that Ron Paul would make this kind of comment. Taking this position is going to cost him much more than he could ever imagine.
I am very concerned that Barack Obama is ineligible for office. Here is a message to members of Congress on this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOA5WSUDmE
A chart summarizing the problem can be found at
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pzydj617-o0/SUFA78DPQtI/AAAAAAAAAfY/XUDOMRyXolk/s1600-h/naturalborncitizenchart.jpg
Thank you
Robert Stevens
Please consider joining me in expressing your concerns to Congressman Ron Paul
POSTED BY ROBERT STEVENS AT 11:52 AM
A Message for Patrick Fitzgerald About Obama and the Selective Service
It is widely known that Obama's Selective Service Registration appears to be fake when examined closely by experts, and has many suspicious characteristics. It exhibits several inconsistencies. This was first revealed by Debbie Schlussel on her website on November 13, 2008.
Barack Obama claimed in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that aired on September 7 of 2008 on ABC's Sunday Morning Television Program "This Week" that he had considered joining the military. Obama alleged that he registered for the Selective Service upon graduating from High School in 1979. He claimed that he did not do so because the US was not at war at that time [1][2][3]. Some expressed skepticism about his comment, particularly since the requirement to register was not reinstated until July 2, 1980 with the passage of Proclamation 4771, "Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act".
The Selective Service System National Headquarters mailed retired federal government law enforcement agent J. Stephen Coffman materials alleged to be Barack H. Obama's Selective Service Registration paperwork along with a cover letter dated October 29, 2008. A friend who is a lawyer and I spoke extensively to Mr. Coffman a few weeks ago about his efforts to obtain this
documentation.
Mr. Coffman had attempted to obtain Obama's Selective Service registration form using multiple FOIA requests for well over a year. Coffman met with nothing but delays and run-arounds and hassles and bureaucratic buck-passing. Finally, Coffman gave the Selective Service Registration office the choice of either providing any email correspondence associated with this Selective Service Record, or the Selective Service Record itself. The Selective Service System National Headquarters then very quickly produced the requested documents. It is apparent from the discussions I had with Mr. Coffman that the Selective Service System National Headquarters was anxious to avoid producing the email correspondence associated with this Selective Service registration record.
From the analysis provided by Debbie Schlussel, there is something very amiss with what purports to be Obama's Selective Service registration. Were the documents the result of a forgery by a "helpful" clerk? Were they the result of a coordinated effort or a request from the Obama Campaign itself? Would the email correspondence show evidence of this? The telephone records? Was there a reason it took around a year to get ahold of this document? Why does the document appear to be a fake?
Even stranger is a defense of this Selective Service Registration by someone named "Daniel Amon" who does not work for the SSS. A little investigation appears to turn up some suspicious details about this "Daniel Amon". Is this another example of a disinformation campaign?
Forging federal records is a crime. Notice that what is purported to be Barack Obama's signature on his Selective Service registation, allegedly signed in 1980, is very different than Obama's signature on the Arizona Certificate of Eligibility, signed in December of 2007:
.jpg)
Barack Obama claimed in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that aired on September 7 of 2008 on ABC's Sunday Morning Television Program "This Week" that he had considered joining the military. Obama alleged that he registered for the Selective Service upon graduating from High School in 1979. He claimed that he did not do so because the US was not at war at that time [1][2][3]. Some expressed skepticism about his comment, particularly since the requirement to register was not reinstated until July 2, 1980 with the passage of Proclamation 4771, "Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act".
The Selective Service System National Headquarters mailed retired federal government law enforcement agent J. Stephen Coffman materials alleged to be Barack H. Obama's Selective Service Registration paperwork along with a cover letter dated October 29, 2008. A friend who is a lawyer and I spoke extensively to Mr. Coffman a few weeks ago about his efforts to obtain this
documentation.
Mr. Coffman had attempted to obtain Obama's Selective Service registration form using multiple FOIA requests for well over a year. Coffman met with nothing but delays and run-arounds and hassles and bureaucratic buck-passing. Finally, Coffman gave the Selective Service Registration office the choice of either providing any email correspondence associated with this Selective Service Record, or the Selective Service Record itself. The Selective Service System National Headquarters then very quickly produced the requested documents. It is apparent from the discussions I had with Mr. Coffman that the Selective Service System National Headquarters was anxious to avoid producing the email correspondence associated with this Selective Service registration record.
From the analysis provided by Debbie Schlussel, there is something very amiss with what purports to be Obama's Selective Service registration. Were the documents the result of a forgery by a "helpful" clerk? Were they the result of a coordinated effort or a request from the Obama Campaign itself? Would the email correspondence show evidence of this? The telephone records? Was there a reason it took around a year to get ahold of this document? Why does the document appear to be a fake?
Even stranger is a defense of this Selective Service Registration by someone named "Daniel Amon" who does not work for the SSS. A little investigation appears to turn up some suspicious details about this "Daniel Amon". Is this another example of a disinformation campaign?
Forging federal records is a crime. Notice that what is purported to be Barack Obama's signature on his Selective Service registation, allegedly signed in 1980, is very different than Obama's signature on the Arizona Certificate of Eligibility, signed in December of 2007:
Could his signature have changed that much in 27 years or so? Well I suppose it is possible. Again, we would require the services of a forensic document examiner and more data to know for sure. But I think there is enough evidence here to suggest a crime has taken place, either by someone at the Selective Service System Headquarters, or someone working at their direction. It is not clear if Obama or the Obama campaign is involved, or asked for the Selective Service System people to create some missing paperwork for Obama.
I sent email to the Department of Justice (askdoj@usdoj.gov) on December 20, 2008 offering to share nonpublic details that I had obtained from conversations and email with Mr. Coffman. I sent them the email, mentioning US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald because I do not have an email address for Patrick Fitzgerald or his team at the US Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois. I mentioned Mr. Fitzgerald since he seems to have a group of US attorneys that are willing to look into allegations of misconduct by those associated with Obama and the Obama campaign. I have not heard back, except for an automated reply to show they were in receipt of my email. I also called and left messages, and received a completely unhelpful return voicemail message.
Please join with me in contacting the US Department of Justice, and in particular the US Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois. I think that time is very short, and we have evidence of someone involved in a crime. How deep it goes, I do not know. But I know
someone probably broke the law here, and this is related to a fairly important issue. So contact them and ask them to look into it. I have more information to share with the appropriate law enforcement bodies, if they want.
I am not certain that email is the right way to contact these people. Telephone contacts might be best, or maybe snail mail. If you have any ideas, please feel free to try them.
Contact Information
United States Attorney's Office
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-5300
United States Attorney's Office
Northern District of Illinois, Western Division
308 W. State St., Ste 300
Rockford, IL 61101
Phone: (815) 987-4444
Correspondence to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney
General, may be sent to:
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
BY E-MAIL:
E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to :
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov.
Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000
Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555
Documents
I sent email to the Department of Justice (askdoj@usdoj.gov) on December 20, 2008 offering to share nonpublic details that I had obtained from conversations and email with Mr. Coffman. I sent them the email, mentioning US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald because I do not have an email address for Patrick Fitzgerald or his team at the US Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois. I mentioned Mr. Fitzgerald since he seems to have a group of US attorneys that are willing to look into allegations of misconduct by those associated with Obama and the Obama campaign. I have not heard back, except for an automated reply to show they were in receipt of my email. I also called and left messages, and received a completely unhelpful return voicemail message.
Please join with me in contacting the US Department of Justice, and in particular the US Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois. I think that time is very short, and we have evidence of someone involved in a crime. How deep it goes, I do not know. But I know
someone probably broke the law here, and this is related to a fairly important issue. So contact them and ask them to look into it. I have more information to share with the appropriate law enforcement bodies, if they want.
I am not certain that email is the right way to contact these people. Telephone contacts might be best, or maybe snail mail. If you have any ideas, please feel free to try them.
Contact Information
United States Attorney's Office
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-5300
United States Attorney's Office
Northern District of Illinois, Western Division
308 W. State St., Ste 300
Rockford, IL 61101
Phone: (815) 987-4444
Correspondence to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney
General, may be sent to:
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
BY E-MAIL:
E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to :
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov.
Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000
Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555
Documents
.jpg)
Letter From A Reader Bud Skippy - How to Report Obama to ICE
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters11ef
… how to report illegal aliens
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_hiringillegals
....could report the Federal Government to ICE for hiring Obama as an illegal alien and another complaint against the State of Illinois for hiring an illegal senator, state bar for licensing an illegal, prior employers for hiring an illegal, drivers license, opening a bank account, giving a mortgage on a loan, car loan and on and on.. ...
http://www.vdare.com/mann/reporting_aliens.htm
..how to report illegals
… how to report illegal aliens
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_hiringillegals
....could report the Federal Government to ICE for hiring Obama as an illegal alien and another complaint against the State of Illinois for hiring an illegal senator, state bar for licensing an illegal, prior employers for hiring an illegal, drivers license, opening a bank account, giving a mortgage on a loan, car loan and on and on.. ...
http://www.vdare.com/mann/reporting_aliens.htm
..how to report illegals
You Can Read About Our Case in Today's WorldNetDaily
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Eligibility remains focus of Supremes' conferences
Dispute posted on docket twice after Electoral College votes in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 26, 2008
10:40 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A second conference has been posted on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House, this one scheduled a week after Congress is to review the Electoral College vote tabulation.
The latest issue posted is a request for an injunction on the election results pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by attorney Philip J. Berg, a case that is docketed for a similar conference among the justices on Jan. 9.
Berg's original case raises questions about Obama's eligibility and his injunction request first was filed early in December. It was submitted to and rejected by two different justices before it came before Justice Antonin Scalia on Dec. 18. Then just before Christmas the docket was updated to reflect that the motion had been "distributed for conference of January 16, 2009."
On Berg's Obama Crimes.com website, he said Congress is scheduled to hear the Electoral College results on Jan. 8. Then on Jan. 9 there's the conference scheduled on Berg's case itself, with the injunction issue to be addressed a week later.
WND has reported Berg's case, one of the first legal challenges to Obama's eligibility to reach the Supreme Court, alleges he cannot constitutionally be inaugurated.
"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.
"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.
"The Supreme Court has listed the case of Berg vs. Obama for 'conference' on January 9," the website said.
"I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a 'Constitution Crisis,'" Berg wrote. "There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am concerned that our courts have not yet decided to look into the merits of our allegations."
WND previously reported on a case brought by Cort Wrotnowski. It fell by the wayside when the justices heard about it in conference but refused to give it a further hearing. That was the same fate handed to a case brought by Leo Donofrio. Both challenged Obama on essentially the same issue: allegations that dual citizenship based on a father who was a British subject and a mother who was an American minor disqualified him for office.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 190,000 others and sign up now!
The high court previously turned down a request from Berg to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president until Obama documents his eligibility for the office.
As WND has reported, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president, many have been dismissed, while others remain pending.
The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. Such cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.
A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:
Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Supreme Court conferences on the case and its motions are scheduled Jan. 9 and 16.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz also has brought a complaint alleging Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and has written an open letter to the Supreme Court asking for the issue to be resolved. Last month, WND reported the worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues the Alan Keyes case pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
With such high stakes potentially at risk, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.
That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by over-night delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.
A separate petition, already signed by more than 190,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors. The image his campaign posted online has been rejected by critics since it is a "certification of live birth," not a birth certificate, and under Hawaii law at the time such certifications were given to parents of children born outside the state.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. At one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birthplace in Kenya already was being recognized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related offers:
Sign the petition
POSTED BY ORLY TAITZ, DDS ESQ
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Eligibility remains focus of Supremes' conferences
Dispute posted on docket twice after Electoral College votes in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 26, 2008
10:40 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A second conference has been posted on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House, this one scheduled a week after Congress is to review the Electoral College vote tabulation.
The latest issue posted is a request for an injunction on the election results pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by attorney Philip J. Berg, a case that is docketed for a similar conference among the justices on Jan. 9.
Berg's original case raises questions about Obama's eligibility and his injunction request first was filed early in December. It was submitted to and rejected by two different justices before it came before Justice Antonin Scalia on Dec. 18. Then just before Christmas the docket was updated to reflect that the motion had been "distributed for conference of January 16, 2009."
On Berg's Obama Crimes.com website, he said Congress is scheduled to hear the Electoral College results on Jan. 8. Then on Jan. 9 there's the conference scheduled on Berg's case itself, with the injunction issue to be addressed a week later.
WND has reported Berg's case, one of the first legal challenges to Obama's eligibility to reach the Supreme Court, alleges he cannot constitutionally be inaugurated.
"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.
"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.
"The Supreme Court has listed the case of Berg vs. Obama for 'conference' on January 9," the website said.
"I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a 'Constitution Crisis,'" Berg wrote. "There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am concerned that our courts have not yet decided to look into the merits of our allegations."
WND previously reported on a case brought by Cort Wrotnowski. It fell by the wayside when the justices heard about it in conference but refused to give it a further hearing. That was the same fate handed to a case brought by Leo Donofrio. Both challenged Obama on essentially the same issue: allegations that dual citizenship based on a father who was a British subject and a mother who was an American minor disqualified him for office.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 190,000 others and sign up now!
The high court previously turned down a request from Berg to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president until Obama documents his eligibility for the office.
As WND has reported, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president, many have been dismissed, while others remain pending.
The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. Such cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Several details of Obama's past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family's move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the '80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama's family about his place of birth.
A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as president is below:
Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Supreme Court conferences on the case and its motions are scheduled Jan. 9 and 16.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz also has brought a complaint alleging Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and has written an open letter to the Supreme Court asking for the issue to be resolved. Last month, WND reported the worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues the Alan Keyes case pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
With such high stakes potentially at risk, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.
That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by over-night delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.
A separate petition, already signed by more than 190,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors. The image his campaign posted online has been rejected by critics since it is a "certification of live birth," not a birth certificate, and under Hawaii law at the time such certifications were given to parents of children born outside the state.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. At one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birthplace in Kenya already was being recognized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related offers:
Sign the petition
POSTED BY ORLY TAITZ, DDS ESQ
Letter From A Reader
Orly Taitz,
We will be changing the soldiers picture> American Soldiers stand STRAIGHT AND TALL & PROUD.
This present Joyce & I worked on for you is also coming from HOPEFULLY 242,000,000 Million American voters who did NOT vote for OBAMA! Let’s go SAVE AMERICA! My father was 100% pure blooded Hungarian Immigrant. My mother Irish, English, French(combination), born in the U.S.A. I am a 100% PURE BLOODED AMERICAN, born and bred on good old American soil!
NOW, LET’S GO CLEAN UP WASHINGTON D.C.! So I can have my life back. This is beyond ridiculous!
Attorney Lawrence Eagleburger
We will be changing the soldiers picture> American Soldiers stand STRAIGHT AND TALL & PROUD.
This present Joyce & I worked on for you is also coming from HOPEFULLY 242,000,000 Million American voters who did NOT vote for OBAMA! Let’s go SAVE AMERICA! My father was 100% pure blooded Hungarian Immigrant. My mother Irish, English, French(combination), born in the U.S.A. I am a 100% PURE BLOODED AMERICAN, born and bred on good old American soil!
NOW, LET’S GO CLEAN UP WASHINGTON D.C.! So I can have my life back. This is beyond ridiculous!
Attorney Lawrence Eagleburger
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Disinformation, Right on Our Blog
“Dr. Orly, Sandra Lines said nothing more than the obvious fact that images can be faked and to tell for sure one needs to look at the original. She said nothing to indicate that Barack Obama's COLB was genuine or not. And thereby she makes any analysis of the COLB image moot, including that of "Rod Polarik". You can't tell anything from an image.
The suggestion that Dr. Onaka, head of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, recent past president of the national organization of vital statistics agencies (NAPHSIS) would allow a forged Hawaiian birth certificate to be blown all over the Internet without a word from him (or the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health or Hawaii's Republican Governor) is beyond credible. That alone is enough to raise a very high standard of proof for a document analyst trying to assert a forgery. "Polarik's" analysis is about as poor as one could imagine--more of a flight of imagination than science as he sees scans being sent to the one who would do the forgery, as he tries for the 700th time to guess what kind of scannerObama used and matching it miserably.
First of all, what is it to you "Kevin"? Are you a paid Obama operative? Who are you? Why bother? Why do you care?
Second, how did you know that XXX was Ron Polarik?
Third, Ron Polarik and Sandra Lines are not the only two forensic document experts that have examined these documents and weighed in on them. There is at least one other in the Berg case. And these affidavits are not from the Berg case, but from the Hochberg case. Sorry dude. These two might be completely different from the 3 forensic document analysts that Berg has assembled.
Also, having read the 139 page report from Polarik, and having advanced degrees in relevant fields, I would say that Polarik does not "only try to guess what sort of scanner" that Obama used. And how do you know that Polarik has "matched it miserably"?
How would you know? Who are you? Tell me about your PhD in digital image processing why don't you Kevin? Where did you get your degree? Do you hold any patents? What is your publication record like? And what is any of this to you anyway? Why bother?
You ask, why would Onaka allow fake documents to be spread all over? I think the answer is pretty obvious. From the court proceedings in Hawaii, and the fact that the Hawaiian Health
Department has turned down several subpoenas from courts in other states, one can conclude that the government of Hawaii has decided to make a huge stand on this issue.
From interviews in the press, and my own conversations with the officials at the Hawaii Health Department, it is obvious that Oanaka and others in the Hawaii Health Department feel bound by the laws of their state. They have clearly been told that if they talk about this, they will lose their jobs, be fined and/or go to prison. That, coupled together with confusion about what the constitutional requirements are to be president of the United States, and some disagreement about the definition of the term "natural born citizen", as well as a large number of people that believe the constitution is obsolete or optional or should be changed or ignored, and you have the perfect setting for someone like Onaka to behave as he does.
Would you be willing to risk prison time if you were Onaka? Onaka has climbed to his position by playing by the rules. You expect Onaka to break the rules now and maybe destroy his career and spend years in prison? Why? Would you?
And what if Onaka illegally releases Obama's birth record information, and it shows that Obama was not born in Hawaii and Congress and the courts ignore this and confirm Obama as President anyway? Many have stated publicly that they favor making Obama President, even if Obama is shown to be ineligible to assume the presidency. Even Ron Paul has stated this recently. What do you think would happen to Onaka then?
This could include things much much worse than prison; presidents like Clinton and Nixon have used the IRS and other government agencies to harass "enemies". Obama associates with people that advocate bombings and assassination. Not just one or two people, but lots of people. He even supported his cousin Odinga's campaign in Kenya that ended with widespread slaughtering of his opponents, even though his cousin Odinga lost the Kenyan election. Obama is even inviting his cousin Odinga to the inauguration.
What do you think that a President Obama would do to someone like Onaka if he illegally released such information? Do you know that most lawyers will not touch this case for fear of retribution for the same reason? Most judges? Do you expect a government bureaucrat in Hawaii to be braver than most lawyers and judges? To risk his life and the lives of his family to stop Obama when no law enforcement official, no court and no politician has stepped up to offer support and rotection? You expect Onaka to voluntarily blow the whistle and then probably be punished for it? To spend every dime he has and every dime his family has defending his actions in court? To probably be fined, imprisoned or maybe even killed for it? What are you, insane? Naive? Stupid?
Please "Kevin". You are nothing but an Obama operative and a troll. Go away.
The suggestion that Dr. Onaka, head of Vital Statistics in Hawaii, recent past president of the national organization of vital statistics agencies (NAPHSIS) would allow a forged Hawaiian birth certificate to be blown all over the Internet without a word from him (or the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health or Hawaii's Republican Governor) is beyond credible. That alone is enough to raise a very high standard of proof for a document analyst trying to assert a forgery. "Polarik's" analysis is about as poor as one could imagine--more of a flight of imagination than science as he sees scans being sent to the one who would do the forgery, as he tries for the 700th time to guess what kind of scannerObama used and matching it miserably.
First of all, what is it to you "Kevin"? Are you a paid Obama operative? Who are you? Why bother? Why do you care?
Second, how did you know that XXX was Ron Polarik?
Third, Ron Polarik and Sandra Lines are not the only two forensic document experts that have examined these documents and weighed in on them. There is at least one other in the Berg case. And these affidavits are not from the Berg case, but from the Hochberg case. Sorry dude. These two might be completely different from the 3 forensic document analysts that Berg has assembled.
Also, having read the 139 page report from Polarik, and having advanced degrees in relevant fields, I would say that Polarik does not "only try to guess what sort of scanner" that Obama used. And how do you know that Polarik has "matched it miserably"?
How would you know? Who are you? Tell me about your PhD in digital image processing why don't you Kevin? Where did you get your degree? Do you hold any patents? What is your publication record like? And what is any of this to you anyway? Why bother?
You ask, why would Onaka allow fake documents to be spread all over? I think the answer is pretty obvious. From the court proceedings in Hawaii, and the fact that the Hawaiian Health
Department has turned down several subpoenas from courts in other states, one can conclude that the government of Hawaii has decided to make a huge stand on this issue.
From interviews in the press, and my own conversations with the officials at the Hawaii Health Department, it is obvious that Oanaka and others in the Hawaii Health Department feel bound by the laws of their state. They have clearly been told that if they talk about this, they will lose their jobs, be fined and/or go to prison. That, coupled together with confusion about what the constitutional requirements are to be president of the United States, and some disagreement about the definition of the term "natural born citizen", as well as a large number of people that believe the constitution is obsolete or optional or should be changed or ignored, and you have the perfect setting for someone like Onaka to behave as he does.
Would you be willing to risk prison time if you were Onaka? Onaka has climbed to his position by playing by the rules. You expect Onaka to break the rules now and maybe destroy his career and spend years in prison? Why? Would you?
And what if Onaka illegally releases Obama's birth record information, and it shows that Obama was not born in Hawaii and Congress and the courts ignore this and confirm Obama as President anyway? Many have stated publicly that they favor making Obama President, even if Obama is shown to be ineligible to assume the presidency. Even Ron Paul has stated this recently. What do you think would happen to Onaka then?
This could include things much much worse than prison; presidents like Clinton and Nixon have used the IRS and other government agencies to harass "enemies". Obama associates with people that advocate bombings and assassination. Not just one or two people, but lots of people. He even supported his cousin Odinga's campaign in Kenya that ended with widespread slaughtering of his opponents, even though his cousin Odinga lost the Kenyan election. Obama is even inviting his cousin Odinga to the inauguration.
What do you think that a President Obama would do to someone like Onaka if he illegally released such information? Do you know that most lawyers will not touch this case for fear of retribution for the same reason? Most judges? Do you expect a government bureaucrat in Hawaii to be braver than most lawyers and judges? To risk his life and the lives of his family to stop Obama when no law enforcement official, no court and no politician has stepped up to offer support and rotection? You expect Onaka to voluntarily blow the whistle and then probably be punished for it? To spend every dime he has and every dime his family has defending his actions in court? To probably be fined, imprisoned or maybe even killed for it? What are you, insane? Naive? Stupid?
Please "Kevin". You are nothing but an Obama operative and a troll. Go away.
Another Nice Example of Disinformation
Sure enough, another "o-bot" who called himself "A REAL American" posted some drivel in response to my blog post, "Will the Military Respect the President-Elect?":
“I guess that's why the military donated 6:1 for Obama during the election:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-14-military-donations_N.htm
Or the retired Admirals and Generals that supported Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdN8XpL36Pk
And it's funny how reports from other sources said nothing about the silence you claim.
Of course, you'll just dismiss it as more MSM propaganda.....as you do with anything that doesn't fit your myths and conspiracy theories.....
Unfortunately, we had to remove "A REAL American"'s post because we cannot let this blog turn into a platform for ridiculous pro-Obama propaganda. The internet is already full of such sites, replete with disinformation and lies. And there are many Obama operatives who frequent blogs and forums to try to spread their lies and poison and venom.
No, I will not claim that this story is necessarily accurate. You and I were not there. I did not see any video footage; did you? But this story is sourced to 3 different news outlets. So we have to wonder. It is interesting how all the stories in the media that make Obama look bad you just reject out of hand, and you only repeat the stories in the media that make Obama look good. Not very objective.
Clearly, reality is far more nuanced than you are trying to portray it. If you just want to blindly believe that Obama is incredibly popular among the military because a few retired military leaders came out in his support, and a news report came out that Obama had more campaign contributions from deployed military than McCain, that is your prerogative. But frankly, I do not find your evidence particularly compelling.
Obama Support Among Military Leaders
To start with, this YouTube video of what appears to be a press conference or campaign media event features 1 retired admiral and 3 retired generals. Two of the retired generals had "noncombat" positions in the military. One was in charge of "civil works" and the other was a "chief of staff" for the National Guard. What was their basis for supporting Obama?
First, they support Obama because he had disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. Allow me to point out that Obama had no access to the intelligence that many of the other senators and congressmen did; he did not have the clearance to hear the information. All of those with the clearance to hear the real intelligence (not what was reported in the press, which is badly misleading and deficient) voted to remove Saddam Hussein. Even Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, which was passed by both houses of Congress, and called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.
However, is this a necessary qualification for someone to be president? Someone who voted against a war when he did not have access to the information the decision was based on? I was against the war myself. Do I fulfill the requirements to be president of the United States then?
The second reason the retired military leaders gave for endorsing Barack Obama was that Obama is always calm and has a placid demeanor. So that is a prerequisite for someone to be president? Someone should be passionless? The US has had stolid, resolute presidents before, and that is no guarantee that someone will be regarded as a good president (see an analysis of presidential temperament here).
For example, Calvin Coolidge was one of US presidents with a calmer temperament, but he is not remembered as one of the great US presidents. He is remembered as a bit of a disaster. He rose to prominence because of his union-busting activities. Many think his administration's policies set the US up for the 1929 crash. He is described by some as a "worried pessimist".
How many liked Gerald Ford as a president, particularly at that time? Ford was very calm and reasonable, which is why he was chosen to replace Nixon by the Congress. However, Americans thought he was dull. Ford presided over the start of what became known later as "stagflation".
Jimmy Carter might be viewed as a fairly imperturbable bloodless technocrat. Carter's presidency is perceived by many as a failure.
On the other hand, Kennedy, Reagan, and both Roosevelts, are all widely praised as presidents. All of them were passionate adventurers and temperamentally the opposite of someone "calm
and placid".
Anyway, these 3 retired generals and 1 retired admiral who voiced support for Obama, in addition to retired generals Wesley Clark and Colin Powell, can be compared with over 100 retired generals and admirals who endorsed McCain. That is, retired military leaders support McCain in far greater numbers. Obama's military support is less than 5 percent of McCain's military support among retired military leaders. So basically trying to rely on these 4 guys in a YouTube video to prove anything is beyond comical. It is ridiculous.
Retired General Wesley Clark, who once was reportedly being considered by Obama for a position in his administration and maybe even for the vice-presidential slot on the ticket, was nominally an Obama supporter, but still did not give Obama a ringing endorsement. Clark was famous for stating on Face the Nation on CBS that "I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." However, on another occasion, in a BBC interview, Clark had stated that Obama was not sufficiently experienced to be Commander in Chief and to end the war in Iraq. Clark said, "That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path."
The Campaign Contribution Report
The report on the donations is very selective and a bit hard to swallow. First, if you count all donations, then according to the same report McCain supporters gave an average of 502 dollars each to McCain's campaign, while Obama supporters gave an average of only 310 dollars each to Obama's campaign. The numbers with the biggest differences were the overseas donors, but there were only 134 overseas Obama donors and 26 overseas McCain donors; the Obama donors represent 0.038% and the McCain donors represent 0.0071% of the roughly 364,049 US troops deployed overseas.
These numbers are so small that it is not clear if they mean anything, or if they are representative or even if they are accurate. It is not clear what time period this report covers, and if a different time period was chosen or a longer time period was chosen, if the results would have been different. All kinds of other factors could restrict these contributions such as the type of deployment and location, and so it is not clear what these donation numbers are even measuring.
Other reported contribution statistics paint a far more complicated picture. For example, military donors from January 2007 through March of 2008 favored Republicans over Democrats, 62 percent to 38 percent; that is, Republicans raised 63 percent more money from the military than Democrats did, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In addition, the CRP reports that during that period, Ron Paul raised 12.8 percent more money from the military than Obama did. So Obama is supposedly the troop's favorite, based on that widely hyped story in the mainstream press? Does that report mean that Obama is incredibly popular among the enlisted men and women? I doubt it.
I suspect if we looked even more carefully into the military campaign support data, we might find that the media had once again reported this story in a selective manner, or "cherry-picked" the data, or engaged in some other sort of misrepresentation. After all, the media have done it lots of times in the past in previous stories, right? Once the press loses its credibility, it is hard to rely on anything they claim, including this story about military campaign donations.
Other Signs Obama has a Military Image Problem
Barack Obama is also associated with many radical anti-military groups, like Code Pink. Code Pink has donated heavily to the Obama Campaign as a "bundler". Code Pink has "harassed, vandalized and impeded military recruiters across the United States in a campaign it calls “counter-recruitment.”" Code Pink even donated over 600,000 dollars to the families of terrorists attacking American troops in Fallujah, because Code Pink views them as "freedom fighters". This association of Obama with Code Pink has been decried by Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, Move America Forward, Military Families Voice of Victory, The Band of Mothers and FreeRepublic.com[1]. This shows Obama's has great support from our military and will continue to enjoy this support?
The US military has solidly and repeatedly rejected a draft for many years and is happy with its current all-volunteer force. A lot of left wing attacks on McCain focused on bemoaning the potential of a draft if McCain were elected [2][3][4]. McCain stated that he would not be in favor of a draft unless the US was faced with "World War III" [5] .
Obama on the other hand has stated repeatedly that he will call for "universal national voluntary service". That is not a draft? Well he does not call it a draft, but it is essentially a draft. Obama just presents it with a lot of double-talk. What is universal voluntary service? If it is universal, it is not voluntary.
“I guess that's why the military donated 6:1 for Obama during the election:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-14-military-donations_N.htm
Or the retired Admirals and Generals that supported Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdN8XpL36Pk
And it's funny how reports from other sources said nothing about the silence you claim.
Of course, you'll just dismiss it as more MSM propaganda.....as you do with anything that doesn't fit your myths and conspiracy theories.....
Unfortunately, we had to remove "A REAL American"'s post because we cannot let this blog turn into a platform for ridiculous pro-Obama propaganda. The internet is already full of such sites, replete with disinformation and lies. And there are many Obama operatives who frequent blogs and forums to try to spread their lies and poison and venom.
No, I will not claim that this story is necessarily accurate. You and I were not there. I did not see any video footage; did you? But this story is sourced to 3 different news outlets. So we have to wonder. It is interesting how all the stories in the media that make Obama look bad you just reject out of hand, and you only repeat the stories in the media that make Obama look good. Not very objective.
Clearly, reality is far more nuanced than you are trying to portray it. If you just want to blindly believe that Obama is incredibly popular among the military because a few retired military leaders came out in his support, and a news report came out that Obama had more campaign contributions from deployed military than McCain, that is your prerogative. But frankly, I do not find your evidence particularly compelling.
Obama Support Among Military Leaders
To start with, this YouTube video of what appears to be a press conference or campaign media event features 1 retired admiral and 3 retired generals. Two of the retired generals had "noncombat" positions in the military. One was in charge of "civil works" and the other was a "chief of staff" for the National Guard. What was their basis for supporting Obama?
First, they support Obama because he had disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. Allow me to point out that Obama had no access to the intelligence that many of the other senators and congressmen did; he did not have the clearance to hear the information. All of those with the clearance to hear the real intelligence (not what was reported in the press, which is badly misleading and deficient) voted to remove Saddam Hussein. Even Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, which was passed by both houses of Congress, and called for the removal of Saddam Hussein.
However, is this a necessary qualification for someone to be president? Someone who voted against a war when he did not have access to the information the decision was based on? I was against the war myself. Do I fulfill the requirements to be president of the United States then?
The second reason the retired military leaders gave for endorsing Barack Obama was that Obama is always calm and has a placid demeanor. So that is a prerequisite for someone to be president? Someone should be passionless? The US has had stolid, resolute presidents before, and that is no guarantee that someone will be regarded as a good president (see an analysis of presidential temperament here).
For example, Calvin Coolidge was one of US presidents with a calmer temperament, but he is not remembered as one of the great US presidents. He is remembered as a bit of a disaster. He rose to prominence because of his union-busting activities. Many think his administration's policies set the US up for the 1929 crash. He is described by some as a "worried pessimist".
How many liked Gerald Ford as a president, particularly at that time? Ford was very calm and reasonable, which is why he was chosen to replace Nixon by the Congress. However, Americans thought he was dull. Ford presided over the start of what became known later as "stagflation".
Jimmy Carter might be viewed as a fairly imperturbable bloodless technocrat. Carter's presidency is perceived by many as a failure.
On the other hand, Kennedy, Reagan, and both Roosevelts, are all widely praised as presidents. All of them were passionate adventurers and temperamentally the opposite of someone "calm
and placid".
Anyway, these 3 retired generals and 1 retired admiral who voiced support for Obama, in addition to retired generals Wesley Clark and Colin Powell, can be compared with over 100 retired generals and admirals who endorsed McCain. That is, retired military leaders support McCain in far greater numbers. Obama's military support is less than 5 percent of McCain's military support among retired military leaders. So basically trying to rely on these 4 guys in a YouTube video to prove anything is beyond comical. It is ridiculous.
Retired General Wesley Clark, who once was reportedly being considered by Obama for a position in his administration and maybe even for the vice-presidential slot on the ticket, was nominally an Obama supporter, but still did not give Obama a ringing endorsement. Clark was famous for stating on Face the Nation on CBS that "I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." However, on another occasion, in a BBC interview, Clark had stated that Obama was not sufficiently experienced to be Commander in Chief and to end the war in Iraq. Clark said, "That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path."
The Campaign Contribution Report
The report on the donations is very selective and a bit hard to swallow. First, if you count all donations, then according to the same report McCain supporters gave an average of 502 dollars each to McCain's campaign, while Obama supporters gave an average of only 310 dollars each to Obama's campaign. The numbers with the biggest differences were the overseas donors, but there were only 134 overseas Obama donors and 26 overseas McCain donors; the Obama donors represent 0.038% and the McCain donors represent 0.0071% of the roughly 364,049 US troops deployed overseas.
These numbers are so small that it is not clear if they mean anything, or if they are representative or even if they are accurate. It is not clear what time period this report covers, and if a different time period was chosen or a longer time period was chosen, if the results would have been different. All kinds of other factors could restrict these contributions such as the type of deployment and location, and so it is not clear what these donation numbers are even measuring.
Other reported contribution statistics paint a far more complicated picture. For example, military donors from January 2007 through March of 2008 favored Republicans over Democrats, 62 percent to 38 percent; that is, Republicans raised 63 percent more money from the military than Democrats did, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). In addition, the CRP reports that during that period, Ron Paul raised 12.8 percent more money from the military than Obama did. So Obama is supposedly the troop's favorite, based on that widely hyped story in the mainstream press? Does that report mean that Obama is incredibly popular among the enlisted men and women? I doubt it.
I suspect if we looked even more carefully into the military campaign support data, we might find that the media had once again reported this story in a selective manner, or "cherry-picked" the data, or engaged in some other sort of misrepresentation. After all, the media have done it lots of times in the past in previous stories, right? Once the press loses its credibility, it is hard to rely on anything they claim, including this story about military campaign donations.
Other Signs Obama has a Military Image Problem
Barack Obama is also associated with many radical anti-military groups, like Code Pink. Code Pink has donated heavily to the Obama Campaign as a "bundler". Code Pink has "harassed, vandalized and impeded military recruiters across the United States in a campaign it calls “counter-recruitment.”" Code Pink even donated over 600,000 dollars to the families of terrorists attacking American troops in Fallujah, because Code Pink views them as "freedom fighters". This association of Obama with Code Pink has been decried by Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, Move America Forward, Military Families Voice of Victory, The Band of Mothers and FreeRepublic.com[1]. This shows Obama's has great support from our military and will continue to enjoy this support?
The US military has solidly and repeatedly rejected a draft for many years and is happy with its current all-volunteer force. A lot of left wing attacks on McCain focused on bemoaning the potential of a draft if McCain were elected [2][3][4]. McCain stated that he would not be in favor of a draft unless the US was faced with "World War III" [5] .
Obama on the other hand has stated repeatedly that he will call for "universal national voluntary service". That is not a draft? Well he does not call it a draft, but it is essentially a draft. Obama just presents it with a lot of double-talk. What is universal voluntary service? If it is universal, it is not voluntary.
Corrupt IL Hospital Board Has Given Campaign Contribution to Obama, He Returned It Only Now, when Scandal Erupted
Reform Law Might Have Aided Blagojevich Scheme
A 2003 Illinois Good-Governance Measure Supported by Obama Apparently Backfired in Hospital-Construction Scandal Article
more in Politics »By JOHN R. EMSHWILLER and CHRISTOPHER COOPER
President-elect Barack Obama helped enact an Illinois good government reform measure while serving as a state senator in 2003 that appeared to inadvertently have aided Gov. Rod Blagojevich in an alleged corruption scheme involving hospital construction.
Mr. Obama backed legislation that revamped the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. The panel was responsible for approving major hospital expansion projects and was seen at the time as unwieldy and tainted by cronyism. The bill shrank the size of the board and set new limits on a governor's ability to stack the panel with members of his own political party.
Getty Images
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich
But Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat, put together a friendly, five-member majority on the shrunken board that included members of both parties -- board members whom Mr. Blogajevich and his allies used to extract money from companies seeking approval to build medical facilities, according to the federal criminal complaint filed this month against the governor. The alleged health-board abuses were part of what prosecutors say was a broader scheme by Mr. Blagojevich to obtain money for political favors, including the attempt to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated last month by Mr. Obama. Mr. Blagojevich has denied the charges.
There is no indication that President-elect Obama was involved in any hospital board wrong-doing. But his role in the legislation shows how he became a useful, though apparently unwitting, ally to Mr. Blagojevich's alleged schemes, sometimes conducted under the "reform" slogan that both men regularly invoked.
After the passage of the law, Mr. Obama received $15,500 in campaign donations from three hospital-board members who since have been identified by prosecutors as participants in the alleged abuses. As the Illinois political scandal that has now engulfed Mr. Blagojevich burgeoned, Mr. Obama gave that money to charity.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt declined to comment on the 2003 law or the Blagojevich scandal. In a written statement, he said that "President-elect Obama's longstanding record of reform in the Illinois legislature is clear." He said that record included a sweeping 1998 ethics reform package and Mr. Obama's support this year for a state law to reduce special-interest influence in the legislature.
Mr. Obama and aides also have denied wrongdoing in Mr. Blagojevich's alleged abuse of his appointment power to fill the vacant U.S. Senate seat. The Obama transition team released a
report Tuesday saying Obama aides had some interaction with Mr. Blagojevich and his associates on the matter, but didn't discuss any deals.
Mr. Blagojevich won the governorship in 2002 as a reformer. Changing the makeup of the hospital board was part of a general revamp of state panels.
Getty Images
Businessman and fund-raiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko
The hospital board bill was introduced in the legislature in the spring of 2003 and won quick approval from a Senate committee that Mr. Obama chaired; it passed both houses unanimously. A subsequent email from an adviser to the governor named Mr. Obama as one of several legislators instrumental in getting the legislation passed.
Within months of the board's reduction to nine members from 15, Mr. Blagojevich had assembled a majority five-member bloc that was used to begin extracting campaign contributions from medical executives, prosecutors say. A Federal Bureau of Investigation affidavit filed in the Blagojevich case says that the point man in this scheme was Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a friend and major fund-raiser for both Mr. Obama and Mr. Blagojevich.
While Mr. Rezko wasn't a member of the hospital board, he provided instructions on behalf of Mr. Blagojevich to members on how to vote, according to the FBI affidavit. One member of that group, Stuart Levine, testified at the Rezko trial that Mr. Blagojevich had told him to discuss hospital board matters only with Mr. Rezko or another ally, adding that "you stick with us and you will do very well for yourself."
Mr. Levine pleaded guilty in 2006 to two criminal counts related to the misuse of his position on the hospital board and on another state panel and agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Jeffrey Steinback, an attorney for Mr. Levine, declined to discuss the Blagojevich case. None of the four other members of the purported bloc have been criminally charged. Two have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony.
One example of alleged hospital-board abuses cited by prosecutors involved the effort by Mercy Health System to win approval for a new hospital in Crystal Lake, Ill. The board initially voted down the proposal. Later, it reversed its stance. Prosecutors say the reversal came after Mr. Rezko exercised "his influence at the Planning Board" in return for the hospital builder's promise to "make a substantial campaign contribution" to Gov. Blagojevich.
Mercy executives have denied any wrongdoing.
Mr. Rezko was convicted of influence-peddling earlier this year in Chicago federal court in connection with the hospital board and other matters. Prosecutors say Mr. Rezko has begun providing information to them about Mr. Blagojevich. A Rezko attorney declined to comment.
Write to John R. Emshwiller at john.emshwiller@wsj.com and Christopher Cooper at christopher.cooper@wsj.com
A 2003 Illinois Good-Governance Measure Supported by Obama Apparently Backfired in Hospital-Construction Scandal Article
more in Politics »By JOHN R. EMSHWILLER and CHRISTOPHER COOPER
President-elect Barack Obama helped enact an Illinois good government reform measure while serving as a state senator in 2003 that appeared to inadvertently have aided Gov. Rod Blagojevich in an alleged corruption scheme involving hospital construction.
Mr. Obama backed legislation that revamped the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. The panel was responsible for approving major hospital expansion projects and was seen at the time as unwieldy and tainted by cronyism. The bill shrank the size of the board and set new limits on a governor's ability to stack the panel with members of his own political party.
Getty Images
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich
But Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat, put together a friendly, five-member majority on the shrunken board that included members of both parties -- board members whom Mr. Blogajevich and his allies used to extract money from companies seeking approval to build medical facilities, according to the federal criminal complaint filed this month against the governor. The alleged health-board abuses were part of what prosecutors say was a broader scheme by Mr. Blagojevich to obtain money for political favors, including the attempt to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated last month by Mr. Obama. Mr. Blagojevich has denied the charges.
There is no indication that President-elect Obama was involved in any hospital board wrong-doing. But his role in the legislation shows how he became a useful, though apparently unwitting, ally to Mr. Blagojevich's alleged schemes, sometimes conducted under the "reform" slogan that both men regularly invoked.
After the passage of the law, Mr. Obama received $15,500 in campaign donations from three hospital-board members who since have been identified by prosecutors as participants in the alleged abuses. As the Illinois political scandal that has now engulfed Mr. Blagojevich burgeoned, Mr. Obama gave that money to charity.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt declined to comment on the 2003 law or the Blagojevich scandal. In a written statement, he said that "President-elect Obama's longstanding record of reform in the Illinois legislature is clear." He said that record included a sweeping 1998 ethics reform package and Mr. Obama's support this year for a state law to reduce special-interest influence in the legislature.
Mr. Obama and aides also have denied wrongdoing in Mr. Blagojevich's alleged abuse of his appointment power to fill the vacant U.S. Senate seat. The Obama transition team released a
report Tuesday saying Obama aides had some interaction with Mr. Blagojevich and his associates on the matter, but didn't discuss any deals.
Mr. Blagojevich won the governorship in 2002 as a reformer. Changing the makeup of the hospital board was part of a general revamp of state panels.
Getty Images
Businessman and fund-raiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko
The hospital board bill was introduced in the legislature in the spring of 2003 and won quick approval from a Senate committee that Mr. Obama chaired; it passed both houses unanimously. A subsequent email from an adviser to the governor named Mr. Obama as one of several legislators instrumental in getting the legislation passed.
Within months of the board's reduction to nine members from 15, Mr. Blagojevich had assembled a majority five-member bloc that was used to begin extracting campaign contributions from medical executives, prosecutors say. A Federal Bureau of Investigation affidavit filed in the Blagojevich case says that the point man in this scheme was Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a friend and major fund-raiser for both Mr. Obama and Mr. Blagojevich.
While Mr. Rezko wasn't a member of the hospital board, he provided instructions on behalf of Mr. Blagojevich to members on how to vote, according to the FBI affidavit. One member of that group, Stuart Levine, testified at the Rezko trial that Mr. Blagojevich had told him to discuss hospital board matters only with Mr. Rezko or another ally, adding that "you stick with us and you will do very well for yourself."
Mr. Levine pleaded guilty in 2006 to two criminal counts related to the misuse of his position on the hospital board and on another state panel and agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Jeffrey Steinback, an attorney for Mr. Levine, declined to discuss the Blagojevich case. None of the four other members of the purported bloc have been criminally charged. Two have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony.
One example of alleged hospital-board abuses cited by prosecutors involved the effort by Mercy Health System to win approval for a new hospital in Crystal Lake, Ill. The board initially voted down the proposal. Later, it reversed its stance. Prosecutors say the reversal came after Mr. Rezko exercised "his influence at the Planning Board" in return for the hospital builder's promise to "make a substantial campaign contribution" to Gov. Blagojevich.
Mercy executives have denied any wrongdoing.
Mr. Rezko was convicted of influence-peddling earlier this year in Chicago federal court in connection with the hospital board and other matters. Prosecutors say Mr. Rezko has begun providing information to them about Mr. Blagojevich. A Rezko attorney declined to comment.
Write to John R. Emshwiller at john.emshwiller@wsj.com and Christopher Cooper at christopher.cooper@wsj.com
An Open Letter to Mr. Joel Belz
I was quite disconcerted to read an article, entitled "Hoping for a Stumble" by Mr. Joel Belz in World Magazine, dated December 13, 2008, attached below.
Belz seems to suggest that worrying if the president-elect is actually eligible to take the office or not is a "triviality". Belz thinks it is destructive to "orderliness" to insist that anyone assuming the office of the President actually be legitimate.
I would beg to differ. Given the gridlock that could ensue with a usuper in office who is unable to sign any bills into law and the chaos that might be caused by having someone ineligble to be Commander in Chief of the military in office, I think allowing someone who is illegitimate to take office is destructive to "orderliness". I also think that if someone who is ineligible takes the office, he would be vulnerable to extortion, both foreign and domestic. I think it is unreasonable to give anyone this kind of undue influence and leverage over the President of the United States.
I also think that this is potentially the camel's nose under the tent, and sets a bad precedent. We are a nation of laws, and when we just decide to ignore or discard those laws, without even debating the issue, we are in big trouble.
I wrote to Mr. Belz, and asked him:
Sir:
Do you have a problem with following the rule of law? Do you have a problem with the US Constitution? Or do you think the US Constitution should be discarded? Please answer that for me. I await your response and I will publish it on the internet.
Robert Stevens
He responded:
I believe in the rule of law. I believe in following the U.S. Constitution. I do not think the U.S. Constitution should be discarded.
JOEL BELZ
I then replied:
Mr. Belz:
Thank you for your response. Do you have any comment about this quote from the December 24, 2008 issue of Pravda:
"Any politician’s efforts to allow a person to take the Office of the President, who can not prove he is eligible is the highest violation of their Oath to defend and protect the Constitution. Anyone who violates the US Constitution has no authority to represent it."
from: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106866-0/
Do you disagree with this excerpt? Agree? Thank you.
Robert Stevens
I have not heard back from Joel Belz. Please join me in contacting Mr. Belz if you agree with me that the Obama Eligibility Controversy is not some triviality. Following the US Constitution is not an attack on "orderliness". It is just following the rule of law. And I am just stunned that he does not seem to understand this. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Send your comments to Joel Belz at jbelz@worldmag.com.
Robert Stevens
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
December 13, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 25
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
December 13, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 25
Hoping for a Stumble
Nobody should want to destroy a presidency, but many do Joel Belz
Nothing was uglier—bordering even on treasonous—during the recent presidential campaign than the way George Bush's opponents seemed so regularly to welcome bad news from Iraq. Included among his "opponents" in that sense were the Democratic campaigns, for sure. But displaying the same despicable habit were many in the mainstream media.
Nor was the tendency limited to bad news about the war. Who will ever know the extent to which Democratic connivance and media lopsidedness didn't just respond to, but actually helped bring about, the current economic disaster?
But I mention that here not to heap still more criticism on Bush's opponents. I cite these issues instead as examples of behavior that biblically directed conservatives should take care to avoid in their own opposition in the months and years ahead to the presidency of Barack Obama.
I am hearing regularly from WORLD readers who seem intent on only one goal: They are zealous, already, for the failure of the Obama presidency. Indeed, nothing would make them happier than for the Obama presidency to be stillborn.
So, instead of quietly thanking God for a peaceful election and an apparently tranquil transfer of power—and then getting on with the monumental tasks before us—some of these folks won't be satisfied until they can prove that the Obama presidency itself is illicit. "In what sense," one Indiana subscriber asks me in an email, "am I biblically responsible to be subject to a man who unconstitutionally calls himself my president?"
Which makes makes me wonder: Did Nero have to produce a Roman Empire birth certificate before there was binding force to Paul's instruction in Romans 13? He's pretty straightforward: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
But it's not just individual letter-writers. You get the impression that whole conservative watchdog organizations face extinction if you don't give generously—today!—to ensure their ability to maintain litigation that will finally expose our new president's Islamic faith and alien roots. To which I am inclined to say: Good riddance! Let them collapse of their own awkward weight. If there was once a time to explore such bizarre possibilities, that time almost certainly ended with the election.
It's not the risks to the direct mail operatives that should worry us. It's the risk to the republic if we set millions of folks over against each other debating such technicalities. Do folks have any sense at all how devastating to orderliness it might be for a challenge to the legitimacy of Obama's presidency to gain even minimal traction?
Here's the point: Never let it be legitimately said that our main goal is to destroy our opponent or his presidency. Always let it be said that our focus is on the issues themselves—and that, having debated those issues, we are content to leave in God's sovereign hands the political
results.
Admittedly, such a distinction may not always be easy to maintain—and especially so with someone who has an agenda so unambiguously fastened to the liberal left. His support for abortion, for special privileges for homosexuals, for state-controlled education, for over-weening government regulation, and a hundred other liberal causes is well established. And his calculated coolness in driving that agenda heightens the temptation to expose every conceivable weakness of the man instead of seeking, through the electoral and legislative process, to defeat the policy enactment of his program. It's time to prove it possible again to say: "We respect you, Mr. President—along with your office. And at the same time we think you are very wrong."
Unless we learn to do that, though—and not just in a trivial way—we demean the very office we want to uphold. Indeed, we demean the very Constitution some folks claim they are honoring in their efforts to prove an Obama presidency an illicit affair. We end up doing the very thing to our present opponent that we found so ugly and distasteful over the last few years when we were watching it in reverse.
And no more now than on the playgrounds of our youth will it count for much to say: "He hit me first!"
If you have a question or comment for Joel
Belz, send it to jbelz@worldmag.com.
Belz seems to suggest that worrying if the president-elect is actually eligible to take the office or not is a "triviality". Belz thinks it is destructive to "orderliness" to insist that anyone assuming the office of the President actually be legitimate.
I would beg to differ. Given the gridlock that could ensue with a usuper in office who is unable to sign any bills into law and the chaos that might be caused by having someone ineligble to be Commander in Chief of the military in office, I think allowing someone who is illegitimate to take office is destructive to "orderliness". I also think that if someone who is ineligible takes the office, he would be vulnerable to extortion, both foreign and domestic. I think it is unreasonable to give anyone this kind of undue influence and leverage over the President of the United States.
I also think that this is potentially the camel's nose under the tent, and sets a bad precedent. We are a nation of laws, and when we just decide to ignore or discard those laws, without even debating the issue, we are in big trouble.
I wrote to Mr. Belz, and asked him:
Sir:
Do you have a problem with following the rule of law? Do you have a problem with the US Constitution? Or do you think the US Constitution should be discarded? Please answer that for me. I await your response and I will publish it on the internet.
Robert Stevens
He responded:
I believe in the rule of law. I believe in following the U.S. Constitution. I do not think the U.S. Constitution should be discarded.
JOEL BELZ
I then replied:
Mr. Belz:
Thank you for your response. Do you have any comment about this quote from the December 24, 2008 issue of Pravda:
"Any politician’s efforts to allow a person to take the Office of the President, who can not prove he is eligible is the highest violation of their Oath to defend and protect the Constitution. Anyone who violates the US Constitution has no authority to represent it."
from: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106866-0/
Do you disagree with this excerpt? Agree? Thank you.
Robert Stevens
I have not heard back from Joel Belz. Please join me in contacting Mr. Belz if you agree with me that the Obama Eligibility Controversy is not some triviality. Following the US Constitution is not an attack on "orderliness". It is just following the rule of law. And I am just stunned that he does not seem to understand this. With friends like this, who needs enemies? Send your comments to Joel Belz at jbelz@worldmag.com.
Robert Stevens
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
December 13, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 25
Copyright © 2008 WORLD Magazine
December 13, 2008, Vol. 23, No. 25
Hoping for a Stumble
Nobody should want to destroy a presidency, but many do Joel Belz
Nothing was uglier—bordering even on treasonous—during the recent presidential campaign than the way George Bush's opponents seemed so regularly to welcome bad news from Iraq. Included among his "opponents" in that sense were the Democratic campaigns, for sure. But displaying the same despicable habit were many in the mainstream media.
Nor was the tendency limited to bad news about the war. Who will ever know the extent to which Democratic connivance and media lopsidedness didn't just respond to, but actually helped bring about, the current economic disaster?
But I mention that here not to heap still more criticism on Bush's opponents. I cite these issues instead as examples of behavior that biblically directed conservatives should take care to avoid in their own opposition in the months and years ahead to the presidency of Barack Obama.
I am hearing regularly from WORLD readers who seem intent on only one goal: They are zealous, already, for the failure of the Obama presidency. Indeed, nothing would make them happier than for the Obama presidency to be stillborn.
So, instead of quietly thanking God for a peaceful election and an apparently tranquil transfer of power—and then getting on with the monumental tasks before us—some of these folks won't be satisfied until they can prove that the Obama presidency itself is illicit. "In what sense," one Indiana subscriber asks me in an email, "am I biblically responsible to be subject to a man who unconstitutionally calls himself my president?"
Which makes makes me wonder: Did Nero have to produce a Roman Empire birth certificate before there was binding force to Paul's instruction in Romans 13? He's pretty straightforward: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
But it's not just individual letter-writers. You get the impression that whole conservative watchdog organizations face extinction if you don't give generously—today!—to ensure their ability to maintain litigation that will finally expose our new president's Islamic faith and alien roots. To which I am inclined to say: Good riddance! Let them collapse of their own awkward weight. If there was once a time to explore such bizarre possibilities, that time almost certainly ended with the election.
It's not the risks to the direct mail operatives that should worry us. It's the risk to the republic if we set millions of folks over against each other debating such technicalities. Do folks have any sense at all how devastating to orderliness it might be for a challenge to the legitimacy of Obama's presidency to gain even minimal traction?
Here's the point: Never let it be legitimately said that our main goal is to destroy our opponent or his presidency. Always let it be said that our focus is on the issues themselves—and that, having debated those issues, we are content to leave in God's sovereign hands the political
results.
Admittedly, such a distinction may not always be easy to maintain—and especially so with someone who has an agenda so unambiguously fastened to the liberal left. His support for abortion, for special privileges for homosexuals, for state-controlled education, for over-weening government regulation, and a hundred other liberal causes is well established. And his calculated coolness in driving that agenda heightens the temptation to expose every conceivable weakness of the man instead of seeking, through the electoral and legislative process, to defeat the policy enactment of his program. It's time to prove it possible again to say: "We respect you, Mr. President—along with your office. And at the same time we think you are very wrong."
Unless we learn to do that, though—and not just in a trivial way—we demean the very office we want to uphold. Indeed, we demean the very Constitution some folks claim they are honoring in their efforts to prove an Obama presidency an illicit affair. We end up doing the very thing to our present opponent that we found so ugly and distasteful over the last few years when we were watching it in reverse.
And no more now than on the playgrounds of our youth will it count for much to say: "He hit me first!"
If you have a question or comment for Joel
Belz, send it to jbelz@worldmag.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)