About Me

Name: Gabrielle Cusumano
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

"Courtroom Details of Obama’s Eligibility Hearing, Georgia 1/26/12

"... in Georgia, the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve, became official. No longer the stuff of speculation, no longer dismissible by liberals as something which will never be heard in court, Obama’s eligibility became a matter of an official court record.
[Emphasis added]  http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149

[SNIP]
Also entered into evidence were documents, discs and expert testimony calling into question the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate, his Social Security number, his father’s immigration status, his real name and indeed Obama’s own citizenship status.  http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149

All of this in the effort to have Obama’s name kept off the Georgia ballot in 2012. http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149

[SNIP]
The SS number assigned to Barack Obama is from a man born in 1890. It was issued in Connecticut to Obama in 1977 but at that time, again according to sworn testimony and evidence in court, Obama was living in his mother’s house in Hawaii. http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149
[Emphasis added]

From: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149

FULL ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING

By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 2:09 pm   From: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149

For the first time, this morning in Georgia, the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve, became official. No longer the stuff of speculation, no longer dismissible by liberals as something which will never be heard in court, Obama’s eligibility became a matter of an official court record.

What does it mean?

To answer that, one must look at the reason for the hearing to begin with.

For years, Orly Taitz and the Liberty Legal Foundation along with others, have questioned Obama’s legal right to serve. For years, that argument centered on the birth certificate and whether or not Obama was born in the United States.

What made this case and this hearing different, is that it mattered not where Obama was born rather, at the center of the stage, would be the nationality of Obama’s father.

Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen and a great deal of evidence to that point was entered into the official record this morning.

Another linchpin in all of this, is the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” which one must be, by writ of the Constitution, to hold the office of President. According to the plaintiffs in this hearing, that definition can be clearly found in the written opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs Happersett from 1875.

That opinion, which by the way is backed up by several other Supreme Court opinions, states that for one to be a “Natural Born Citizen” both of one’s parents must be U.S. Citizens.

There is no opinion offered, at any time, by the Supreme Court in conflict with this definition and as the attorneys made clear this morning, while some lower court opinions say something else, they do not override nor do they directly conflict with, the Supreme Court decision from 1875.

If that definition is upheld, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore has no standing to hold th office of President as per the Constitution.

This hearing today certainly didn’t end there.

Also entered into evidence were documents, discs and expert testimony calling into question the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate, his Social Security number, his father’s immigration status, his real name and indeed Obama’s own citizenship status.

All of this in the effort to have Obama’s name kept off the Georgia ballot in 2012.

Here is where it become even more interesting.

After being subpoenaed to appear and after an endless stream of excuses as to why he shouldn’t, neither Obama nor his attorney were at the hearing.

This means, all the evidence and all the expert testimony was entered into the official record without a response, a peep, or a rebuttal from Obama or his attorney.

At this point, all of it remains unchallenged. All of it.

This begs the question; Can a sitting President be commanded by subpoena, to appear in court? Many claim Executive Privilege prevents it.

They would be wrong.

While EP can be claimed and upheld in cases of National Security or where it interferes with sensitive issues of security or the military, in other actions, outside those parameters, a court can compel even a sitting President to adhere to the rule of law.

In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court of the United States, citing many landmark cases, including Chief Justice Marshall’s opinions Marbury v. Madison (1803)and United States v. Burr, said that it was incumbent on the High Court to balance between the president’s need for confidentiality in executing his constitutional duties, on the one hand, and “the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice,” on the other. The Court’s unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger was careful to give great credence to the president’s need for complete candor and objectivity from his advisors. The justices also recognized the need for a great degree of confidentiality for the internal deliberations of the executive branch of government. Chief Justice Burger agreed that, if military or diplomatic secrets were at stake, the Court might reach a different conclusion.

However, given that President Nixon’s claims were based on a blanket statement of executive privilege without claiming that any state secrets were at stake, the constitutional duty of the courts is to guarantee due process of law, something that Nixon’s actions were gravely impairing, according to the Court. The justices ruled that President Nixon had to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued by Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Nixon immediately prepared to turn over the subpoenaed materials to Chief Judge Sirica.

Presidents since Nixon have continued to claim that the special place the presidency holds under America’s constitutional system demands that much of its internal deliberations remain secret and privileged. When faced with investigations, special prosecutors, subpoenas, and impeachment proceedings, President William J. Clinton, for example, claimed that much of what went on in the Oval Office was protected by executive privilege and executive immunity, and that he and his aides should not have to respond to subpoenas. As was the case with President Nixon, President Clinton eventually accepted his and his office’s place under the rule of law. Since United States v. Nixon, executive branch claims of immunity from the normal processes of the American legal system have been tempered by the fact that the constitutional demands of due process of law and justice are likely to outweigh claims of executive immunity from subpoenas.

It is yet to be seen whether the court in Georgia will take action regarding Obama’s failure to appear and the failure of his attorney to participate.

Another question worth asking; Why no media coverage of this hearing?

Granted, the mainstream or elite or whatever we’re calling them these days media lean hard to the left and it should come as no surprise that they refuse to give an eye blink toward this hearing. But what of Fox News and even their local Georgia affiliates? Why was nary a word of any broadcast given to today’s hearing?

I suspect it has a great deal to do with their prior position that the birth certificate was real…case closed. I also suspect, that should the Georgia judge find compelling reason to exclude Obama from the state’s 2012 ballot, this WILL become a story.

For those in the conservative blogosphere, this IS a story and IS newsworthy?

How often is a sitting President subpoenaed? How often has a sitting President’s eligibility to appear on a state ballot been questioned in court? How often has a sitting President’s birth certificate been questioned as fake under oath? How often has a sitting President’s eligibility to hold office been testified to in court? How often has a sitting President’s nationality been testified to in court?

This is news. Regardless of what side one takes…This is news.

Never before has a sitting President’s Social Security numbers been shown by evidence and sworn testimony in court as being fraudulent.

The SS number assigned to Barack Obama is from a man born in 1890. It was issued in Connecticut to Obama in 1977 but at that time, again according to sworn testimony and evidence in court, Obama was living in his mother’s house in Hawaii.

One witness in court testified that Obama’s SS number was run through the E-Verify system, the system used to validate a person’s citizenship, and it came back as a high degree of being fraudulent.

Anyway one looks at this, it is news.

At the end of the 2 hour hearing, Judge Michael Malihi adjourned the hearing gathered up all the evidence and the court reporters transcript and returned to his chambers.

At this time, we wait, for how long, we don’t know, for his decision as to whether or not Obama’s name is eligible to appear on the 2012 Georgia ballot.

One can easily suspect, that should he find against Obama in this hearing, a tidal wave of similar cases will be filed in other states. Already, similar cases are pending in some states.

Orly Taitz, the Liberty Legal Foundation and others stand ready to carry forward in such cases.

We also await a decision as to what, if any action, might be taken regarding Obama’s failure to appear and his attorney’s decision to simply not participate under a court subpoena.

Why, if as liberals have claimed for years, all of this is folly and easily dismissed by “facts”, did Obama’s attorney not simply present those “facts” and put an end to it? It would seem that letting it all go unchallenged clearly adds fuel to the fire.

The mere presentation of evidence and sworn testimony today lends a great deal of credibility to the arguments as it is now a matter of official record.

A default judgment should be rendered and no doubt, it will be appealed but we suspect the judge will disallow Obama’s name from appearing on the Georgia ballot. No doubt too, other states will begin to file similar complaints.

The final questions, left unanswered and unchallenged by Obama and his attorney are…Who is this guy Obama really? Who is this who by evidence presented lived in Indonesia and Hawaii at the exact same time? Who is this guy whose SS number indicates he is more than 120 years old and lived in a state in which he never lived. Who is this guy who has been known by at least 2 different names? Who is this guy to which evidence in court indicates is a citizen of Indonesia? Who is this Obama whose birth certificate, shown in evidence and sworn testimony, has been created through layering and computer manipulation and has serial numbers out of sequence with those of others born in the claimed hospital within 24 hours of his supposed birth?

Whoever he is…Whoever he really is…he now occupies the oval office.

We the People.
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Details from this morning’s eligibility hearing in Georgia, to accompany the Breaking News, “
Default Judgment Against Obama Discussed: Today’s Eligibility Hearing in Georgia.”   Found at:
http://gulagbound.com/25486/courtroom-details-of-obamas-126-eligibility-hearing-georgia/
Jan. 26, 2012) — The court convened at approximately 9:30 a.m.  Judge Michael Malihi began by asking those present to stand and reading the last paragraph of Atty. Michael Jablonski’s letter to Brian Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State, “into the record,” commenting that Jablonski was not present at the hearing.

The judge called plaintiff David Welden to stand and asked where he resided and if he were a registered voter in the state of Georgia.  Then his attorney, Van Irion, stood and stated that there were three types of citizenship in the United States.  He then provided argument on the definition of “natural born Citizen,” referring to Minor v. Happersett.

“The court should recognize that the term ‘citizen” is not ‘natural born Citizen,’ Irion said. “The Minor court’s definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ says ‘parents.’

“In closing, this case is about the Constitution,” Irion said. We’ve shown that Barack Obama’s father was never a citizen…and that means he is not constitutionally qualified…Finally, the defendant was ordered to be here, and I wish to state on the record that that shows not just a contempt for this court…”

Then Irion was interrupted and stopped speaking.

9:54 a.m.:  Atty. J. Mark Hatfield stood and stating that he represents Kevin Richard Powell and Carl Swensson.  Hatfield mentioned the White House schedule as he saw that it related to Obama’s lack of attendance at the hearing.

Carl Swensson was sworn in at 9:56 a.m. and stated his residence and county.  Then Kevin Powell was asked the same.  Both were asked if they were able to vote for President of the United States.

Swensson and Powell explained their challenges filed with the Secretary of State’s office to the judge.

Hatfield held up the Certification of Nomination which Nancy Pelosi signed in 2008 to place Obama’s name on the ballot.  The judge asked if it was a “certified copy,” and Hatfield answered that it was.  He then read from it, stating that it did not affirm that the candidates met constitutional requirements to serve, while the wording from the Republican National Committee for its candidates did contain that wording.

The judge asked if the documents were from a “United States government source,” and Hatfield answered “Yes, sir, they were.”

Hatfield cited Jablonski’s January 25 letter “indicating that they did not want the proceedings to go forward and did not want to participate.”  Hatfield also entered into evidence Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father.

Ken Allen, a resident of Arizona, stood to present the documentation he had received from the State Department after submitting a FOIA request early in 2009, which The Post & Email reported on here.  He stated that “Barack Obama Sr.” was “never a citizen.”

At 10:09 a.m. someone said, “Let’s take a short break,” and people stood up and began moving around and talking with one another.

At 10:17 a.m., the court was called back in to order.

Atty. Orly Taitz was called upon to speak.  The Georgia registered voter whom she represents, David Farrar, stood and identified himself.

Taitz utilized a projector on the wall to the right of the judge as an aid in her presentation.  She then stated that evidence existed that Obama possessed Indonesian citizenship, to which the judge was heard by this writer to say, “That’s not relevant.”  Taitz then discussed the court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett and was interrupted by the judge, who said, “Counselor, can you save your argument for the closing?”  She then stopped speaking.

Mr. Christopher Strunk of New York then went up to the front of the courtroom to testify, and Taitz began to ask him questions about the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, one of which contains the name “Soebarkah.”  Strunk stated, “She wanted that expunged from her record, but we never got that.”

Susan Daniels, Private Investigator from Ohio, then took the stand, and spoke about her investigation which revealed that Obama had reportedly been using a social security number which she contended had not been assigned to him.

Taitz asked Daniels, “What was the social security number attached to your request?” and Daniels read off “042-68-4425.”  Daniels said, “In all my years, I’ve never seen anything like this.”  She stated that the person who had originally owned the number had been born in 1890.

“First I ran the social security number to check the address, and the same number came up for him in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC.  It showed a phone number, and it was always the same number…It would show intermittently ‘August 4, 1961′ and ’1890.’”  Daniels stated that she obtained information “directly from the Social Security Administration.”

At 10:30 Mr. Chito Papa took the stand.  He stated that he works in the field of Information Technology including Adobe® software.

Taitz asked Papa if the “birth certificate” which “Obama posted online” had flattened layers.  ”Did you see one layer or multiple layers? Taitz asked.  ”I saw multiple layers,” he answered.

Taitz asked Papa about Obama’s social security number which appeared on his tax return posted on the internet, and Papa stated that the layers had not been flattened.  Taitz then thanked Papa for his testimony.

At 10:36 a.m. another witness, Linda Jordan, was called to the stand.  Taitz adjusted her Powerpoint presentation by means of a laptop computer and began by asking a question about “E-Verify,” the U.S. government’s system for flagging potential illegal immigrants from working.  Jordan stated that she ran Obama’s number through the E-Verify system and said, “When I read it, it was 2011, and it could not verify it.  It came back.”

At 10:39 a.m., Douglas Vogt took the stand.  Vogt stated that he owns a typesetting company and has been “in the business for 18 years now.”

Taitz asked Vogt if he examined the birth certificate which was posted online, and he said, “Yes, I did.”  He stated that “sloping lines” would not be seen if the image had been made from a paper document.

Taitz asked, “Would you expect to see a clear embossed seal on the document?” and Vogt answered, “Yes, I would.”  However, he stated that such was not present on Obama’s birth certificate.  Regarding the number of Obama’s purported birth record, Vogt stated that “federal regs” require that “all birth certificate numbers have to be sequential, starting on January 1.”

At 10:49, witness John Sampson took the stand.  He stated that he has a background in criminal justice, served as a police officer in New York City and worked as an immigration inspector.  His background includes working for the INS in the area of “immigration fraud” and he was also a deportation officer.   He stated that he has testified in front of “federal grand juries.”  He stated that he started his own consulting firm in 2009 and has been self-employed since then.

Taitz asked Sampson about Obama’s social security number, and Sampson said that he “ran” the number 042-68-4425 and that it was assigned to Obama since 1977.

Taitz asked if Sampson had examined the birth certificate, and he said, “Yes.”  He raised the issue of the Nordyke twins’ birth certificate, whose numbers were lower than Obama’s even though their birth occurred a day later.  He stated that the registrar’s name was different than that on the Nordyke twins’ documents and that it was unlikely that the registrar would have been different in the “same hospital” regarding births one day apart.

Sampson recommended further investigation, including subpoenas and court orders, to obtain more information on the number “042-68-4425.”

Sampson mentioned that Obama has also been known as “Barry Soetoro.”

Taitz asked what Sampson thought needed to be done regarding the questions about Obama’s background, and he recommended asking for an official copy of the SS-5 for his social security number application and the Hawaii Department of Health to see “if he was born in Hawaii.”  Sampson stated that an investigation would be “a criminal investigation” through a U.S. attorney’s office.  He said that if a person has been found to be impersonating a U.S. citizen, he would be subject to “deportation.”

Shortly thereafter, Sampson’s testimony ended, and Taitz began discussing Obama’s alleged years in Indonesia from 1968-71, during which he was known as “Barry Soetoro.”

“We have another boy who from 1968-69 was in Hawaii,” she said.  The judge then said, “Are you testifying?  Do you know how?” which brought laughter from the assembly. The judge then said she could discuss the matter during closing arguments.  Taitz responded, “I would like to testify,” after which she took the stand.

Taitz stated that “Mr. Obama has resigned from the bar.”  The judge asked, “How is that relevant?” Taitz said that it was pertinent because Obama was “hiding his identity.”

“I’m going to ask you to submit your testimony in writing,” the judge said.  ”OK,” Taitz said.  She then left the stand and spoke from the assembly once again.  She stated that “We have clear evidence of fraud and forgery…Mr. Obama has used other last names…”  She then stated that of all the lawsuits filed against Obama regarding his eligibility, none were heard on “the merits.”  Taitz asked Judge Malihi to order the release of Obama’s records in Hawaii and to hold Obama in “contempt of court” for failing to appear at the hearing.

The judge said, “Thank you” and adjourned the court at 11:12 a.m.  Found at: http://gulagbound.com/25486/courtroom-details-of-obamas-126-eligibility-hearing-georgia/

 
Also see  in the comment section of 1/25/2012 of:    
Veritas
January 25th, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

from a current article on thepostemail site (Sharon Rondeau) titled:

“Transformation and Infiltration of America: The United States of Frankenstein

  1. OBAMA’S PLAN FOR AMERICA
    by Dr. Laurie Roth, Presidential Candidate
  2. Press Interview Sunday, Sept. 7th, 2008 with Obama
  3. “The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like To Teach the World To Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails —perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments…..”
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Ignore Their Solemn Oath Of Office. Latest HC News Links Here

See Oath and Updated Health Care News Reports Here 3/20/10  
"There is NO evidence that any of them take their Oaths seriously or the Codes of Conduct, or the laws of the land. " (Below)


Remind them of their Oath of Office.  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2475282/posts
 
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

 
It doesn't say they are taking an oath to uphold Obama's desires. They take an oath to the Constitution. If they violate that oath deliberately - at the very least they are guilty of fraud, at the most, high treason. We should start whatever processes are available against them in order to see that they are punished. And that includes the President who also took an oath to protect the Constitution.
http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU
Comment #1 by nolongerademocrat
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is NO evidence that any of them take their Oaths seriously or the Codes of Conduct, or the laws of the land.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Below is what I tell Congress critters when I contact their office:

Any federal version of health care is unconstitutional since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.

Moreover thirty six states are considering legislation to reassert their 10th Amendment rights by preventing the federal government from the attempt of imposing an unconstitutional act by Congress. Virginia and Idaho have passed such legislation.

At least 13 State Attorneys General are considering lawsuits against the federal government should Congress insist on ramming unconstitutional health care down the throats of the American people.

The Slaughter so called “rule” that does not require the House to vote on a bill violates Article 1 Section 7 as it requires both chambers of Congress to vote on a bill.

Senate Republicans have notified Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowing to raise potentially crippling objections to any portion of a proposed health care reconciliation package that they believe violates the procedure’s narrow guidelines should the Senate take up the issue again.

The people are not bound by any unconstitutional act of Congress and therefore will not comply. We will defend the Constitution since members of Congress refuse to uphold their pledge when they took office. There will be massive nationwide resistance. Members of Congress will understand the people are the government, not Congress. You must comply with the will of the people and not the socialist/marxist agenda of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Refusal to do so will only incur the wrath of the American people beyond your comprehension.
    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Wyoming: Don't mess with U.S. Constitution" WorldNetDaily.Com

 The state of Wyoming has adopted a resolution intended to announce the state's opposition to "any attempts to dismantle the United States Constitution which has generally served the country well for nearly 230 years."
 
["... lawmakers in Ohio were considering a call for a Constitutional Convention. He explained that 32 other states already have taken a vote, and only one more would be needed to require Congress to name convention delegates who then would have more power than Congress itself. The Ohio vote later was delayed ..."]
 
Wyoming: Don't mess with U.S. Constitution
Resolution opposes convention to debate 'our most precious rights'


Posted: March 24, 2009
9:16 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily  Excerpted from: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92771


The state of Wyoming has adopted a resolution to inform Washington bureaucrats and bureaucracies of its opposition to any plans to hold a Constitutional Convention that would recommend changes or alterations to the nation's founding document.

House Enrolled Joint Resolution 3 was signed recently by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal.

The Wyoming Family Coalition said the measure, sponsored by state Rep. Bob Brechtel, R-Casper, is intended to announce the state's opposition to "any attempts to dismantle the United States Constitution which has generally served the country well for nearly 230 years."

(Story continues at: WorldNetDaily.com at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92771

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

H.J. RES. 5 - Bill to remove President Term Limits (No joke, must be stopped now!!!)

"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President."
 
Imagine reading this:

The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’ 

Congress > Legislation > 2009-2010 (111st Congress) > H. J. Res. 5
Text of H. J. Res. 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second...http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj111-5
GovTrack's bill text viewer has been recently updated. While we work out the kinks in the new viewer, archival legislative text may not be available. Your comments and suggestions for the new viewer are welcome.

This version: Introduced in House. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill available on this website.

HJ 5 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 5

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2009

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article--

‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’.

 
This document is a record and analysis of all of Rep. Serrano's immigration related congressional votes, cosponsorships, and other immigration actions during his career in Congress. Immigration Profiles is the only exhaustive source for this information available in one place.
(If you are reading this on paper, note the "Last Updated" date above. Consult the website www.NumbersUSA.com for any new or changed information, which occurs often.)


Fax Congressabout its immigration voting record
View Report Card of Rep. Serrano's Immigration Actions

  Links to document sections:
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=NY&VIPID=593
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Barack Obama Above The Law? (Only Natural Citizen Birth "Certificate" Holder Can Be President)

On the "Birth Certificate Issue", whether Obama is a "Natural Citizen"...  Many who have been following the course of the lawsuits here on this website's blog, have remarked that even if Obama is not a natural citizen (which would be unconstitutional) his election to the presidency "will not" be nullified, even though his taking the oath of office would be outright perjury and he would have no standing or legitimacy in any acts as President of the United States.
 
I ask, if Obama knowingly is not a natural citizen, does he then think that he is "above the law" when he takes the Presidential Oath of Office? And will this be allowed by the powers (that be) that are the law here in the United States? Are there any constitutional law enforcers in the US?  Or have we only law makers (unscrupulous Congressmen and women), money men and their political minions, unscrupulous plotical party lawyers, and a cowering in fear of riots in the streets blind folded Supreme Court?
 
As President, this person once he takes the oath of office is in the postion of the highest law authority of the land, (When Clinton lied and perjured himself as President, he was impeached, but Congress let the lawbreaking offense slide in not convicting him, because they twisted it "the perjury before the Grand Jury, into an offense "only about sex" and a private issue between Clinton and his family. )  No!  Clinton commited perjury under oath! You and I  (as American citizens) would surely go to jail if we perjured ourselves under oath before a Gand Jury!
 
I hope Obama comes up with a proper "Certificate" of  Birth and not the (forged?) Hawaiian"certification" of live birth (see "Not Born Here in any Hawaiian Hospital" posting of 12/7/08 here on my blog) before he take the oath, otherwise he is committing fraud against the United States of America and all its citizens, he  will  also be perjuring himself and he most definitely will be putting himself "above the law"!  NO MAN IS EVER ABOVE THE LAW IN THIS COUNTRY!!!! 
 
Comment from John:

Barak Obama-British President of the US

Everybody who is keeping up on this story needs to read the article on the web site,
 
The article reads, Barak Obama's dad a Kenyan was a British subject governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, this Act also governed his children, "Barak Obama Jr." therefore he is a British Subject, who is now the President Elect of the United States. Will the SCOTUS do anything, that's the million dollar question.
 
INTERNET POWERHOUSE ANDY MARTIN BLAMES THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA FOR FAILING TO DO THEIR JOB, BUT SAYS CREATING LIES IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY OBAMA'S OWN FABRICATIONS

(CHICAGO)(December 8, 2008) Over four years ago I created the anti-Obama movement by disclosing that Barack Obama was lying about his religious heritage. I went on to publish the first questions about Barack Obama's citizenship (and forced Obama to admit I was right) as well as making a continuing series of disclosures about the man. But I am increasingly concerned that the anti-Obama movement is passing into the hands of fast buck artists such as a corrupt Philadelphia lawyer, Philip Berg, and other con artists or profiteers who do not have any legitimate basis for their inflammatory accusations against Obama.

Con men make it difficult for honest columnists to present legitimate questions about Obama. There is no way I can compete with the litany of lies that is being marketed as "facts" and "law" to a deceived public.

Three basic points:

First, people have a constitutional right to dislike Obama. In our free society no one can tell us who to believe, and who to follow. Every American leader in recent history has also had his rabid opponents. There is nothing new about the militant anti-Obama partisans. Indeed, in a healthy democracy, skeptics keep politicians in line by exposing their lies and shining light on suspicious activity. In principle, I strongly support the anti-Obama movement, because I am one of those skeptics.

Second, Obama has been his own worst enemy in creating doubt and fanning speculation about himself. He is an unknown man. He has secreted his college records from occidental College. He has secreted his records from Columbia University, and he has secreted his records from Harvard Law School. What has oozed to the surface has linked Obama to the most unsavory and anti-American elements in our society. Bill Ayers, anyone? Khalid Al-Mansour, an anti-Semitic, anti-white Black nationalist, has been exposed as someone who raised money to finance Obama's legal education. What?

Obama refuses to discuss an of these matters.

Obama posted a laser-printed abstract of his birth record on the Internet at FactCheck.org, and falsely portrayed this document as a "copy" of his "original birth certificate." It was nothing of the sort. But Obama fooled a lot of people with his big lie. Why did he lie, and why did he falsely represent what he was posting? Good question. But by constantly and repeatedly lying, Obama has been the biggest source of suspicion concerning his birth and family history.

Third, the decline of mainstream media (MSM's) has helped fuel crooks and paranoids on the Internet. Last month in Honolulu I began a nationwide series of "Conversations" about the future of Obama's opponents. I was surprised by how little was known about Obama, even by his legitimate and sincere opponents. The MSM's never did their job.

Last month I also exposed a Philadelphia con artist, Philip Berg, who has been issuing increasingly fraudulent claims and making increasingly irrational arguments against Obama. Berg claims to be a "Hillary Clinton supporter, when he is nothing of the sort.

Last week an advertisement ran in the Chicago Tribune challenging Obama's qualifications for office. There were legitimate questions contained in that ad, as well as gross exaggerations and undocumented accusations. In my opinion, the ad would have been more powerful if it had stuck to the facts, and Obama's lies, instead of creating a new round of deception and misrepresentation by his opponents.

Who is to separate the wheat from the chaff? Monday, three people who have filed lawsuits against Obama are holding a Washington, DC news conference. Readers and citizens should have a "contrarian" commentary on the three lawyers who are attacking Obama.

First, Philip Berg. As near as I can tell, Berg is a scam artist and nothing more. He filed a crackpot lawsuit to collect money and, one presumes, to put the money in his pocket. I spoke with Mr. Berg before he filed his lawsuit, and advised him his claims were injurious to Obamas legitimate opponents. Berg didn’t care. He just wanted to scream—and ask for money.

Berg filed a paranoid lawsuit in federal court and, as I told him it would be, the case was promptly tossed out. He then filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals and, for good measure, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to cancel the 2008 election. I have lost track of Berg's wild charges. A few days ago I heard from a woman in Florida who made the paranoid claim that Berg has provided "secret evidence" to the Supreme Court. Yah, sure. People will believe anything. What was her source for the claim about Berg? Directly or indirectly, no doubt Berg himself.

The irony in Berg's lawsuit and the two which I discuss below is that they are pinning their hopes on Justices Thomas and Scalia. These two judges have done more than anyone else to close down and lock out citizen participation in the judicial system. So are we to assume that judges who have been locking the courthouse doors by issuing restrictive interpretations of "standing to sue" are now suddenly going to reverse themselves and reject the pronouncements of their entire judicial careers? Could happen, of course. But highly unlikely.

Second, there is a lawyer from New Jersey named Leo Donofrio. No one had ever heard of Mr. Donofrio before he popped up and also demanded to stop the 2008 election. Unlike Berg, Donofrio followed the correct legal highway, by petitioning state officials, and then working his way up through the state courts, before filing with the U. S. Supreme Court. There is no question that procedurally, Donofrio has followed the correct path.

But do Donofrio's claims make sense? Donofrio claims Senator John McCain is not "natural born" because his father was serving in the military when the senator was born. That claim is complete nonsense. Donofrio makes a similar accusation against Obama. If Donofrio had some track record of being either a legal scholar or an recognized advocate, I would look more deeply at his claims. But Donofrio has no track record as an attorney at all. Would you listen to a "surgeon" who was making radical new surgical claims if he had no record of any medical accomplishments? Not many people would.

Finally, there is Alan Keyes and his lawyers in California. I am not an admirer of Alan Keyes. He is a charlatan and huckster who carpet bagged in Illinois and appealed to some right-wing morons in the local Republican Party. Keyes helped elect Barack Obama to the Senate in 2004. In the process, Keyes administered a blow to Illinois Republicans from which they have not yet recovered. "The rest is history."

But, amazingly, Keyes has the best case of the "DC threesome." Keyes' name was on the ballot last month. Undoubtedly he has standing to challenge Obama. Unlike Berg and Donofrio, who are representing themselves, Keyes actually has an independent lawyer who is therefore responsible for filing a meritorious claim at the risk of his own career.

I don’t know a thing about California law, where Keyes' case was filed, but he is certainly following the outline I presented on a talk radio program last month: people could challenge Obama's election at state election agencies and thereafter in state courts. Keyes has apparently gone to court on a proper basis. His petition seems to be the most valid, and the most rational, of the three that that are popping up at the Washington news conference on Monday.

But Keyes is also a political profiteer. He uses his political activism to run a very lucrative business. Keyes is not a Republican and he is not even a politician. Rather he uses the political grandstand to merchandise his views for profit, and he makes a very good living at it. It's a free country, and his activity appears to be legal. So if people who agree with him want to financially support him, that is their right and privilege.

The level of paranoia that these cases are spawning, however, is exploding beyond reason. I spoke to a woman last week who seemed rational. By Friday she was accusing me of hurting Obama's opponents by telling the truth about them. She was not the first person who told me I should accept lies if they were being spread for a good cause, namely opposition to Obama. I refuse to do so.

Are there questions about Obama's birth certificate? Indeed there are. I have filed my own lawsuit in the state courts in Hawai'i, the only courts that actually have jurisdiction over Obama's document, to release the certificate. On October 31st I prompted a big lie from Hawai'i officials: Chiyome Fukino issued a statement on her official state letterhead stating that she had "personally seen and verified…has Senator Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

What do those weasel words mean? She could have an "original birth certificate" confirming he was born in Kenya, as the extremists want to believe. And why is she covering up the original document? The birth certificate is no longer a private document; it is a part of American history. Whether you love or hate Obama, he is now a part of our history, a big part. I have asked the Hawai'i judge in my case not to insult the intelligence of the American people by falsely claming he is protecting Obama's "privacy." That's nonsense.

Interestingly, however, I am the only investigator who has actually filed a lawsuit seeking access in the proper state under the proper court procedures seeking the proper material. That does not guarantee me a win, but it makes my lawsuit in Hawai'i a serious one, in comparison with Berg's frivolous claims in federal court. Why is no one else seeking the truth in Hawai'i? Maybe they would prefer to peddle their lies. Lies seem to be more profitable. And cheaper to produce.

The latest "lie" is that there is "evidence" that Obama was born in Kenya. If I had a shred of credible evidence that Obama was actually born in Kenya, I would jump on it. And, do you know what? Bad as they are, even the MSM's would be all over the story. That claim first crossed my desk last spring. But there is not a shred of credible evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.

Over the past few months there has been a bogus operation called the African Press International that has been peddling lies and exaggerations about Obama and—no surprise—they are linked to Philip Berg. http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/10/michelle-obama-african-press-update.html

Berg was also the originator of the plan to bombard the Supreme Court with letters. I don’t know how many have been sent, but they would never be helpful to a litigant with a legitimate claim.

People who are not lawyers often misunderstand the "right to petition" clause of the First Amendment. The "right to petition" is not an unlimited right to do what you want where you want with any and all public officials. You can’t just barge into the White House and "petition" the president. Likewise, over the past 200 years Courts have developed procedures for petitioning them. Sending letters to judges is not one of them. Once again, the purveyors of paranoia are misleading the public, by falsely claiming that the "right to petition" allows them to harass judges. It does not.

Over the past four years I have made serious charges or accusations against Obama. They have all proven to be factually accurate. And where my opinions have changed after more research and investigation, I have openly acknowledged that fact. Rather than trying to excite people with lies, I have tried to do exactly the opposite: present the truth so we can have an informed debate on Obama's limitations and weaknesses.

But in the case of Obama I have constantly been told that lying is the right approach when the truth is not available or inconvenient. The ends justify the means when you are against Obama. I disagree. Berg doesn’t care about truth, facts or credibility. He is using lies as a fund raising mechanism, to exploit the anti-Obama element that is as rabidly and blindly anti-Obama as the "Obamabots" are pro-Obama. I do care about the facts and truth.

Finally, an article in today's Chicago Tribune helps explain why the Internet has become such a forum for the delivery of misinformation. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-birth-certificate1dec08,0,7258812.story

As MSM's have declined, and news organizations have been striped of their resources, hucksters have moved in to sell paranoia and disinformation at a profit. Jerome Corsi followed me to Honolulu, and falsely claimed the Governor had "sealed" Obama's birth records. He never corrected his story when the Governor denied his claims. The truth was expendable. He did nothing to challenged the Governor's rebuttal. He just went on to new claims.

Likewise, WorldNetDaily.com has published writers who have been both sources of accurate information about Obama and also provided gibberish masquerading as "constitutional" analysis. Junk sells. People who hate Obama will believe anything, and pay for the privilege of being deceived.

I would love to believe Obama was born in Kenya. Yes I would. And if anyone can show me any evidence of that fact, I will look at it seriously. But the "caller" I spoke with last week now claims she has the exact time when Obama was born in Mombassa. She has become unhinged because of her irrational hatred for Obama. She also believes Obama's "grandmother," who supposedly claims she was present when Obama was born. Sadly, the old woman who was originally but falsely portrayed as "granny" by Obama himself (shooting himself in the foot, again) is probably senile and is not his grandmother at all. She was not his father's mother, period. But Obama managed to fool the Chicago Sun-Times. That paper falsely labeled her as "granny" on its web site for months.

Maybe Obama is reaping what he sows: he lies to the public, and his lies boomerang on him when they are exposed and fuel new speculation. But at the end of the day, even Obama's lies have to yield to the facts and the truth. And the fact and truth is that his "granny" is not his granny, and the possibility she was present at his birth is remote to nonexistent. Obama exploited a senile old woman for his own disinformation purposes, and now his opponents are doing the same.

Maybe Obama and his paranoid protesters deserve each other.

Where do we go from here? First, let me make an obvious observation. Politicians are given a very wide berth in our political system. From Senator Joe McCarthy, who falsely claimed he had a list of "200 communists" in his pocket, down to the present, politicians and political activists have unfortunately used and abused free speech with exaggerations and disinformation. Obama himself is a master of disinformation and misrepresentation. The constitution protects these exaggerations.

But misusing the courts is entirely a different matter. As I told Phil Berg in August, no one has a right to file a false pleading in a federal court and claim "I saw it on the Internet." Courts want documentation, not hyperventilation, for arguments presented to a judge. Courts are not a political forum, even if some judges abuse their powers. Courts are not a place for liars, incompetents and con men. That is why Berg and Donofrio are likely to lose, and likely to disappoint their supporters, who will no doubt immediately spawn a new round of "rumors" and fabrications about the "real" basis for their defeat.

Almost every day I get e-mails talking about "rumors" about what is happening at the Court. Rumors from whom? You get the picture.

Secondly, I will continue to strive and search for the truth. I have often said I follow the fictional Sergeant Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am." The facts may not be easy to get to, and judges may rule against you. But that is no reason to fabricate "facts," and I refuse to do so.

In addition, as any honest and experienced lawyer knows, in a court of law if you mix lies in with the truth, the lies will undermine the truth and destroy your case. Lawyers who file fantasies in court seldom win, and they often do damage to the very causes and clients they claim to be supporting.

The fact is, Obama has been the source of a great many lies, and he refuses to tell the truth. Why? But, on the other hand, how could sensible people vote for someone like that? These are legitimate issues. But just because they are legitimate issues does not mean they can be fashioned into legitimate lawsuits.

Finally, blame the MSM's, and blame them legitimately. But, at the end of the day, we still need to confront and attack Obama on his lies, and not create and concoct our own lies to fight back.

By all means, feel free to ask me to attack and expose Obama. I delight in doing so. But please don’t ask me to lie about him. I won’t do it.

----------------------------------------------
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.
Book orders: Amazon.com or http://OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from Amazon.com or signed copies from the publisher are available.
---------------------------------------------
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to oppose President-elect Barack Obama. http://CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American.
“The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised almost a billion dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com
---------------------------------------------
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting experience in radio and television. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see http://www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]  Excerpted from lengthy postings at: http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-washington-dc-news-conference.html
 
6:00 PM EST  Latest articles (links to) as of 12/08/08:     (also see other postings here on this blog for 12/08/08)
Obama birth certificate, AP news release, Dr. Chiyome Fukino ...
Nov 1, 2008 ... Philip J Berg has always maintained that the birth certificate and location of ... Andy Martin Hawaii, Supreme Court Petition, Obama birth ...
Fight to Reveal Obama's Birth Certificate Continues - America's ...
Hawai’i judge conducts vigorous hearing on Obama birth certificate battle ... Today, the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case - Leo C. Donofrio v. ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Obama's Eligibility to be Aired Monday at National Press Club.

...without verification of Obama's eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution,"
Full quote:
"Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama's eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution," said Schulz

 

Mr. Obama's Eligibility to be Aired Monday at the National Press Club
Dec 4 04:18 PM US/Eastern

QUEENSBURY, N.Y., Dec. 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama's legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question - the meaning of the "natural born citizen" clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.

Robert Schulz will briefly discuss Mr. Obama's response to the publication of his Open Letter in the Chicago Tribune on Monday and Wednesday of this week. For the reasons given in the Open Letter, Schulz asked Mr. Obama to: (1) immediately authorize Hawaiian officials to provide a team of forensic scientists access to his original ("vault") birth certificate and (2) arrange for the delivery of other documents needed to conclusively establish Obama's citizenship status. Mr. Schulz will answer questions from the press.

"Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the Office of the President unless he or she is a 'natural born citizen,'" said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the Foundation. "To date, Mr. Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional eligibility."

 

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama summarizes the evidence against Mr. Obama and the adverse consequences that would befall the Nation should he assume the Office of the President as a usurper.

"Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama's eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution," said Schulz.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20081204.DC50071&show_article=1&catnum=3
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Instigating Class Warfare. Divided We Fall

"Not only did his race speech turn into a call for Class Warfare, but it was Obama who first interjected race into the campaign."  Ruvain
 
October 27, 2008 Wrapping the election up, his closing argument includes attacking the  US Constitution.
 
 
video
 
Before the hate comments start, let me say that I think Obama is a nice person with the best of intensions. But... Why ... (more)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ruvain

March 31, 2008 3:40 PM

While it wold be nice if Obama had seized the day and provided an advance in race relations, he used the speech to promote Class Warfare inviting poor whites to join in the Victimization Philosophy that has plagued so much of the Black Community.

De Tocqueville remarked on men's passion to be Equal in Slavery rather than work for the fruits of Liberty. The Victimization Philosophy of Class Warfare places blame outside the individual and forever blames The Other. The essence of bigotry is to blame others for one's troubles. Southern bigots in the 1950 did not burn crosses because they had fait in their own abilities to improve and advance. They projected their deficiencies onto others, especially Blacks and Jews. Stimulating Class Warfare capitalizes on this same Blame Others mentality and in another form of bigotry.

Obama's race speech was a large step backwards due to his missing the opportunity to take a large step forward. Obama is not a healer nor is he a Bringer-Together. His Class Warfare Approach in divisive and he is stimulating the worse in American culture.

Barbara

March 31, 2008 9:06 AM

At one time I would have voted for the Democrats ,simply because my family coming to America in 1911 did ,escaping fasism and the likes. But over the years I have changed. My Grandparents and parents would roll over in there graves. I can not vote for a known thief nor a racist. Simply because it has been in the family to vote for a democrate. And hope for the best in voting the old partyline. I have looked into the back ground of both of these two and really was quite suprised that everything I found out(last summer)about this Obama and his church has come out. With more to come. This church is against Israel and the jewish people. And has hit to core of the hate He would bring the White house. The party has become more and more socalist. Which both of these two are pushing for higher tax and larger goverment. And remember Hitler also called for change.
 
ruvain
April 1, 2008 3:52 PM

Obama started out looking like Jimmy Carter and he seems to be morphing into Richard Nixon.

If people listened to what Obama actually says (and stopped being blinded by the color of his skin), they would realize that Obama is showing himself to be an unsavory character. Not only did his race speech turn into a call for Class Warfare, but it was Obama who first interjected race into the campaign.

When the White independent voters in New Hampshire did not vote for Obama in the high numbers the polls had predicted, it was the Obama Camp that charged that White voters were racist. In alleging racism, they alluded to when Mayor Tom Bradley ran for governor in California and the polls had incorrectly predicted his land slide victory. More likely than not, both New Hampshire and California reflected the phenomenon that when a land slide victory is predicted, a lot of voters stay home. Then, the Obama Camp began pushing the ludicrous notion that Hillary was racist because she said that the nation needs both civil rights leaders like MLK and political power like LBJ. (No, I am not a Hillary fan.)

Today, the media reports that Obama has accused McCain of wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years. This is pure demagoguery. McCain was making the valid point that after a successful conclusion of military operations, it is often necessary to have a military presence for decades. He referred to both Japan and Korea. Obama was distorting McCain’s position just the way most demagogues divert the public away from honest discussions of real issues.

Like Richard Nixon and more recently Donald Rumsfled, Obama engages in lies. He lied about being in church when the Rev. Wright made his inflammatory comments. When that lie was about to be exposed, he changed his story but denied about supporting Rev Wright’s position. We know, however, that Obama could not have sat in his pew going “tsk tsk tsk.” Obama had joined that specific church in order to gain “creds,” and he wasn’t going to jeopardize his nascent political career by opposing Rev. Wright’s agenda. As people are learning, the Rev. Wright’s theology is not all that unusual in the Black Community. Had Obama criticized the Rev. Wright, Obama would have been out of place and he would have earned no “creds.” The idea that Obama did not know what Jeremiah Wright was preaching and that Obama was not in sync with that brand of theology is not credible.

Just as it took months for The Mark Furhman Tapes to emerge, it will take some time for the tapes of Obama “me-too-ing” Rev. Wright to be disclosed, but we know what somewhere, someone has to have those tapes. Who knows, maybe we will have another mid-night break-in.

Obama is not a matter of White or Black – he is as much White as he is Black. Race has nothing to do with his qualifications. He fails MLK’s Test of Character and as such he isn' the Jewish candidate as far as I am concerned.
Mar 25, 2008 ... While it wold be nice if Obama had seized the day and provided an advance in race relations, he used the speech to promote Class Warfare ...
blog.beliefnet.com/virtualtalmud/2008/03/the-future-of-race-relations.html
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

October 27, 2008 6:58 AM

Obama: Constitution deeply flawed


An informed electorate is an empowered electorate!

Read all my campaign commentary here.

Love,
signature.gif

Posted in Campaign 2008 | Permalink

Comments

Wow, that's scary. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: Jennifer (Conversion Diary) | October 27, 2008 7:50 AM

Am I mistaken, or is he saying that he can't defend the Constitution of the United States of America?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault | October 27, 2008 8:10 AM

This makes me so mad. If you don't like our constitution then get the hell out of our country.

Posted by: paigeu | October 27, 2008 9:46 AM

What fundamental flaw was he referring to??

Posted by: Laura | October 27, 2008 10:48 AM

The posts are coming fast and furious. Thank you for all your hard work compiling these facts. I know you're spending a lot of time finding these items and I appreciate your efforts.

And, yes, this scares me.

Posted by: Alison C. | October 27, 2008 11:01 AM

To hear Obama's quote in context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Posted by: Rebecca | October 27, 2008 11:35 AM

From:  http://mommylife.net/archives/2008/10/obama_constitut.html
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 


http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/27/obama-campaign-to-worshipers-ditch-work-and-school-on-election-day-for-the-one/
___________________________________________________________________________________
Obama, talking about the US Constitution here


Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
"A More Perfect Union"
Constitution Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Watch the entire speech and read the text below the video player:



"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

 

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

 

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

 

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

 

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

 

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

 

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

 

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

 

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

 

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

 

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

 

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

 

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

 

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

 

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

 

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

 

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

 

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

 

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

 

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

 

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

 

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

 

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

 

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

 

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

 

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

 

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

 

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

 

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

 

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

 

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

 

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

 

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

 

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

 

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

 

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

 

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

 

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

 

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

 

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

 

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

 

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

 

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

 

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

 

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

 

We can do that.

 

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

 

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

 

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

 

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

 

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

 

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

 

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

 

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

 

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

 

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

 

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

 

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

 

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

 

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

 

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »