Sunday, September 27, 2009

Eligibility Issue Update

I haven't reported on the eligibility issue in quite some time, but I have been keeping up to date with it by reading what is going on via other blogs. This morning, while reading Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny," I ran across the fact that the Aviation Transportation and Security Act requires that all airport baggage screeners be U.S. citizens. It occurred to me that if one of the commenters (below) is right about Obama losing his U.S. citizenship when he lived in Indonesia, then he wouldn't even be eligible to be a baggage screener!

It is more likely (IMO) that Obama is a dual citizen, or U.S. citizen, but cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen" (see sidebar quote) which is required for eligibilty to be POTUS.

Last night, I ran across an article and website blog that is very critical (to put it lightly) of the "birther" movement. I will warn you that many of the comments (haven't read them all) are very disparaging. However, it was through that site where I found a video conversation with Liveprayer's Bill Keller and United States Justice Foundation lawyer, Gary Kreep. Some interesting facts to consider plus a petition that you can sign to force authorities to investigate and settle this issue once and for all.

The last two comments (at the time of this writing) over at the "Talking Points Memo" blog, are very well reasoned and intelligently presented.

The disparaging title of "birther" is meant to insult those who are highly concerned that the biggest fraud ever perpetrated against our nation has occurred with the felony of a usurper taking the office of the presidency while knowing that he wasn't qualified under Article II, Section 1 clause 5 of our U.S. Constitution.

Here are the comments:

September 27, 2009 6:41 PM

Hard to deny the truth. Not a racist, just a concerned American trying to protect 223 years of American culture and politics. If you have two American citizen parents at the time of your birth, that birth is on American Soil, and you have no ties to any foreign governments, you can consider yourself a Natural Born American Citizen.

But if your daddy was a Kenyan, Brit under the British Nationality Act of 1948, which caused you to be born a British subject at the moment of your birth, you can NEVER be considered a Natural Born American Citizen.

Citizen and Natural Born American Citizen, are not today nor were they in 1787, the same thing. A president has to be a Natural Born American Citizen (see John Jay's letter to George Washington dealing with Natural Born). There are questions whether Barack Hussein Obama is a citizen of the United States of America. But anyone who has been awake a day in the last 12 months knows he can never be considered a Natural Born American Citizen with a foreign father and citizenship allegiance to England from birth.

Those that post against these facts are simply trying to uphold this farce to push forward their Communist Agenda. Communism is alive and well in our America today. It controls our MSM and institutions of education. Either we fight and destroy it today or it will forever change our America and our lives and families. Join the fight today or watch your future world become the United Socialist States of Planet Earth. Then Bow Down to the Grand Supreme Leader. The end of Freedom will be upon us.

Dr Zaius
September 27, 2009 7:08 PM

The birthers (including the aptly-named Kreep, Esq.) usually leave out their best argument -- which has nothing to do with Barack's birth but rather his subsequent loss of U.S. citizenship.

When Barack was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and had his name changed to Barry Soetoro (so he could attend Indonesian school), Barack became a citizen of Indonesia which did not allow dual citizenship at that time.

There is no indication that Barack ever took the steps necessary to get his American citizenship back when he moved back to Hawaii. Indeed, he apparently traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport in the early 1980's.

Yesterday, The Right Side of Life Reports: Certifigate: No “Long Form” for Obama; DNC Obama Eligibility Cert Only in HI

I hesitate to include a brief excerpt here because is you haven't been following the topic being discussed there, you may not understand why such questions are being presented. However, here is a short recap and the additional pertinent questions:

Obviously, while Hawaii’s statute requires that such language be there in the certification of nomination, no state statue requires that such language not appear in the document. So, why didn’t the DNC use one universal doc like the RNC?

Upon further investigation, we did indeed learn that some state primary filings do include language of constitutional eligibility by each candidate. However, that is a statement made by each candidate, not a certification of compliance made by the Party which had vetted the candidate and certified.

And, I can’t believe that anyone needs me to explain the significant difference between “implied” and “certified?” A personal check “implies” that you have money in your account, which may or may not be true. But a “certified” check guarantees that you have that money in your account. …

Many Americans, at home, in congress and in the media, have assumed that Obama meets all qualifications because the DNC said he did. But in 49 states, they never said it, at least officially!

If you ask Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did she “certify” Obama as eligible under Article II, she would simply state that she never made any such certification, except in Hawaii… and she would be telling the truth!

The language necessary to certify Obama as eligible was omitted from the documents filed at 49 Election Commission offices, and in most of those cases, such certification was also missing in the primary filings.

Now, to be fair, the DNC had been omitting that language from their official filings for years. Refusing to certify their candidates as “constitutionally eligible” has been a practice of the DNC for at least a few election cycles now. Why?

The Final Questions
1.Why did the DNC certify Obama’s eligibility only in Hawaii?
2.Why did no state DNC office, DNC elector, or Election Commission office catch it?
3.Since the DNC made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
4.Without any such certification, isn’t it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen?”
5.Why did the DNC use TWO different docs, one incomplete, when the RNC used the same complete doc nationwide?
6.On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
7.Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
8.When will every American demand answers to these and many more questions?

In addition to all that I have already reported here, Investigating Obama reports: Orly Taitz Watch: 'Eligibility' Movement Members Breaking Ties

As far as I know, Arlen Williams is the first blogger to question Taitz' true allegiance and motives in the eligibility lawsuits. Sabotaging her clients and making terrible errors in her "representation" of them has come to light. If true, what a sad revelation that is!

Mr. Williams is asking for your help:

Investigating Obama calls, once again, for information from those who have kept tabs on the Orly Taitz details, over the last year or so, especially for anyone with legal training. If you have done some logging, or can do so, especially with an eye to her management or mismanagement of cases, please email:

Hat Tips to all links (sorry - lazy today!)

Additional stories:

World Net Daily: BORN IN THE USA?
49 of 50 states never saw certification of eligibility?
Researcher: Democrats dodge Constitution, even in primaries

RepubX: DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States! [be sure to read through the comments!]

No comments: