| A Wider Conspiracy: 17 Lawsuits Challenging Obama's Eligibility |
|
|
|
|
November 19, 2008
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director HomelandSecurityUS.com Currently, there are 17 lawsuits in 12 states that are challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to become the next President of the United States based, in part, on the true circumstances of his birth. These circumstances include his actual place of birth as well as his status as a naturalized citizen. The latest lawsuit was filed by Alan Keyes, a Presidential candidate in the 2008 election. Documents in PDF format available at this link. Nonetheless, the corporate media, including the majority of right-wing conservative talk show hosts, continue to dismiss this issue as irrelevant or give this matter only cursory lip service to satisfy the minority of Americans who still care about the rule of law. From Blog commentators to officials elected to uphold and protect the rule of law, the prevailing opinion appears to be that Obama's eligibility is not a legitimate issue for rational people. The issue represents nothing more than sour political grapes, a red herring, or a distraction from the larger issues. The simple fact that this entire controversy could be forever put to rest by Obama simply providing a legitimate copy of his true birth certificate. Instead, he has chosen to fight such a release at every turn, using, among others, an attorney associated with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Deeper research and investigation into this matter finds that the staging for the defense of the eligibility question appears to have been addressed by a contingent of lawmakers earlier this year in the form of Congressional Resolution 511, a resolution co-sponsored by Obama himself. Under the guise of putting to rest any objection to Senator John McCain's eligibility to become our nation's President because he was born outside of the U.S., the media fell all over themselves by as they praised Obama's sense of fair play as illustrated by such headlines and articles as: Obama Backs Law That Aids McCain, (Washington Post, March 1, 2008) and Clinton, Obama Agree: McCain's a "Natural Born Citizen" (Wall Street Journal, April 11, 2008) Closer scrutiny of this resolution, however, finds that the resolution actually was expanded far beyond what was necessary to merely apply to Senator McCain: it was expanded to include naturalized citizens, which ironically was the "cause of death" for this resolution. Indeed, there is a much larger (dare I say) conspiracy afoot, one that threatens the security of the United States as much as al Qaeda and all of our foreign enemies combined. It is the enemy from within.
Stay tuned, this is only the "introduction." Trackback(0)
Comments (15)
![]() written by Kevin, November 25, 2008
"Closer scrutiny of this resolution, however, finds that the resolution actually was expanded far beyond what was necessary to merely apply to Senator McCain: it was expanded to include naturalized citizens, which ironically was the "cause of death" for this resolution." Why do you people believe such garbage? Go to the Senate web site HERE and read the resolution yourself. There is nothing about "naturalized" in it. It does state the widely-held idea that children born to US parents (such as McCain and Romney) but outside the borders of the US are "natural born citizens". Naturalized is a cla*s of citizens who were not born citizens. ("Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born." - Wikipedia.) The 14th amendment makes this clear: citizens are either born citizens or naturalized citizens.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Kevin, November 25, 2008
To Mr "I live in Hawaii. Here, the law allows that any baby under 1 year old can be issued a live birth certificate, no questions asked", I just ask why no one in the world has been able to come up with any official Hawaiian law or web sites that says anything like this. Just because you (claim to) live in Hawaii doesn't mean you know Jack about Hawaiian law.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Kevin, November 25, 2008
Your article names the president elect as "Barack Hussein Obama". That's his father's name. The PE is "Barack Hussein Obama II". It's on his bleeding birth certificate.
Blasted tin foil had, nut case, conspiracy theory madness. You folks wouldn't recognize a birth certificate if it came up and bit you on the nose. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
written by kerry, November 24, 2008
The U.S. Consitution and powers and rights administered died years ago under Lincoln and FDR. Yet so few people know and understand. It is all pretend now, a circus con-game. This is just one more nail in the coffin of our freedoms and nation. Sadly, once the greatest country on earth, we have fallen faster than Rome.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by clever bob, November 21, 2008
I really doubt anything would be enough for those of you who believe this is an issue. They could have a video of his birth with the doctor and attending nurses presenting their Hawaiian drivers licenses and you'd probably just call it a fake. Look, short of a*sa*sination or a screw up majorly bad in both the left and right's eyes, he's going into office in January. As an American, one ought to respect majority rule and support the president. I voted Obama, but even if McCain had won I'd still understand that this was because the majority of the country after examining the issues felt McCain represented the constituency's best interests. I would still pray for him and Palin to be good leaders. Let's work with what we've got for now and down the road if Obama does something incredibly stupid I might be right with you in calling for impeachment. How does that sound?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
written by Tom from Florida, November 21, 2008
"Mr. To You" - You did a lot of name calling but didn't include any FACTS. You have taken a play from Dictator-elect's play book. If you can't address the message then attack the messanger. I will accept Dictator-elect Obama if he will prove that he is constitutionally qualidfied for the job.
"News" - I don't know where you get your news from, but it is NOT true. The case was dismissed because the DNC and Obama requested a dismissal, and the judge agreed. The reason? The judge believed the attorney had no right to ask Dictator-elect if he was a natural-born citizen. Have we lost all of our rights already? Even before Dictator-elect Obama takes office? We have a right to see if this man will abide by our constitution. If he doesn't abide by Amendment 2 then no constitutional rule/law is safe. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Julie, November 20, 2008
I live in Hawaii. Here, the law allows that any baby under 1 year old can be issued a live birth certificate, no questions asked. IT DON'T MEAN A THING regarding Obama!!! Of course, he was ALIVE at the time his mother brought him in to get the certificate. DUH! Question is WHERE are the actual birth records, (i.e. witnesses, nurses, doctors)(notice the "Live Birth" doc is quite lacking in this information).
Why did Obama's REAL paternal, not adopted, grandmother state, IN KENYA, where she resides, that she witnessed his birth IN KENYA (Jerry Corsi, World Net Daily)? WHY has the Kenyan Gov had his birth records sealed??? IN fact, WHY does KENYA even HAVE ANY of his birth records at all?? IS THERE ANY INTELLIGENT LIFE OUT THERE, FOLKS??? Public records sealed? THERE'S TOO MANY CLUES! Just connect the dots. Seek the Truth and you will find it! Obama doesn't present the real birth records to prove he is "natural born" because, guess what! THEY DON'T EXIST! is my guess. Wake up, America, DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES OF THIS MAN! report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
Mr. To You, Lowly rated comment [Show]
written by clever bob, November 20, 2008
http://i305.photobucket.com/al...ficate.jpg
alternatively http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2442/bobirthcertificatety0.jpg report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
News?, Lowly rated comment [Show]
written by Jared L. Ohlinger, November 19, 2008
If Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Alan Keyes and all of the others making these claims are lying, and this could possibly destroy Barack's career, and effectively end the Democratic Party, why have the DNC and the Obama Camp not sued them for libel?
I know if these "vicious rumors" were being published and pursued about and against me, and I had nothing to hide in a court of law I would have sued for libel the day these suits were presented. Instead the DNC and Obama have decided to file injunctions and attempt to have these suits tossed on technicalities to avoid having to prove the unprovable which would ultimately lead to the absolute destruction of the Democratic Party and the "Hope" of changing the course of this country forever. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
written by World Crisis, November 19, 2008
A Government that Robs Peter to Pay Paul will surely and always have the full support of Paul.
The Obama administration will surely and agressively Breed & Feed Pauls while Persecuting & Pillaging Peters. Beware Obama... Be Afraid... Be VERY Afraid !!! report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Republican dog, November 19, 2008
This is outrageous, I dont want someone to be president who doesnt follow the rule of law. And if he prevails and has paid someone off or produced a copy that looks real and has fooled us, then we are the losers. All of us. How can we get to the bottom of this?
Will we ever know the truth? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
written by Ted, November 19, 2008
You gotta hear this 90 minute blogradio on why the media has a blackout of the looming Obama Birth Certificate Constitutional Crisis:
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-is-obamas-birth-certificate-still.html report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Write comment
|
|
buy future payments 8mm film transfer Emergency Lights Plano Divorce Lawyer credit repair company Alcoholic Symptoms |
| press release distribution - Distribute Press Releases to Journalists at Newspapers, Magazines, TV and Radio. |
Thanks for asking,
The Supreme Court ruling in New York Times vs Sullivan, states that a public figure cannot sue for libel unless they can prove not only that what is written is false, but also that it the falsehood was written with "actual malice". This ruling makes it nearly impossible for public figure to win a libel suit and that's why you don't see politicians suing all the time.