http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/p_hollrah/2010/03022010.htm
 

Paul R. Hollrah, O.E.
The Obama Eligibility Question Lives On
March 2, 2010

Beyond surviving the current political madness in Washington, the American people have no greater task ahead than to insure themselves that another Barack Hussein Obama can never again hold political power in our country.

When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to sign the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives. So is it even remotely conceivable that just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties - e.g., an individual with dual US-British citizenship - to serve as president or vice president of the United States? It is not, and they did not.

In order to forestall that eventuality the Framers included a provision...Article II, Section 4...requiring that candidates for president and vice president be at least thirty five years of age, that they have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and that they be natural born U.S. citizens, owing allegiance to no foreign power because of the circumstances of birth.

Expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers,

"These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?"

In recent columns we have discussed the controlling legal authority, under U.S., British, and Kenyan law, necessary to determine Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

If we can agree that Obama's father, a citizen of Kenya, then a British colony, was a British subject at the time of his birth, a fact that Obama himself has attested to on numerous occasions, it is evident that, under Part 2, Section 5[1] of the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was born with automatic British citizenship "by decent" from his father. Thus, it is an inescapable fact that Obama held dual US-British citizenship from the date of his birth, August 4, 1961, until December 12, 1963, the day that Kenya won its independence from Great Britain.

However, Article VI, Section 87[3](2) of the Kenyan Constitution states that "Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Obama Jr.), or a British protected person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963."

Therefore, setting aside the possibility that Obama may have acquired Indonesian citizenship when his mother married Indonesian Lolo Soetoro and moved to Jakarta in 1967, it is clear that Obama held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from December 12, 1963, the date of Kenyan independence, until at least his 21st birthday on August 4, 1982, when he claims to have been a student at Columbia University in New York.

In either event, Barack Obama is clearly not a "natural born" U.S. citizens and is, therefore, ineligible to serve in the office he occupies. So how did we manage to get ourselves into this mess? Three successive systemic failures combined to provide us with a usurper president.

The first failure occurred in Denver, Colorado during the last week of August 2008 when Democrats met to nominate candidates for president and vice president. The delegates to that convention had an obligation to put before the American people fully qualified candidates for our nation's two highest offices. They did not live up to that responsibility. Instead, they certified to the states a candidate for president who was, and is, ineligible to serve in that office.

The second failure occurred on December 15, 2008 when the Electoral College met to elect a president and vice president. In Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton referred to the "investigation" necessary to the selection of a president and vice president. In describing the duties of the Electoral College, he said, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation."

Although the Democratic members of the 2008 Electoral College were forewarned that Obama may not possess the necessary qualifications, they were apparently so anxious to regain control of the White House that they simply ignored their constitutional obligation to select a candidate who was fully qualified to serve.

The third and final failure occurred on January 8, 2009 when the Congress met in joint session to certify the vote of the Electoral College. As the final and failsafe step in the electoral process, the Congress had the duty to insure themselves of the qualifications of Barack Obama and Joe Biden...which they failed to do.

So where does this leave us? Obama Kool-Ade drinkers, and Democrats in general, are blithely dismissive. Their view is that the people have spoken; they went to the polls and voted, so that's it...leave it alone. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution be damned. But that cannot be the case.

In a December 8, 2008 discussion of the congressional certification process, Dr. Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues that, "...the question of Obama's eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient.

"Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be 'a natural born Citizen,' by simply assuming that he is such, or by accepting something other than what lawyers call 'the best evidence.' " (e.g. Obama's published certificate of live birth, versus a certified Hawaiian birth certificate)

Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a natural born citizen (in which case an Elector cannot constitutionally vote for him)...the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a "constitutional sufficiency (emphasis added)," because Congress has no power to simply waive the Constitution's eligibility requirement...

This leaves us with the question, if the Congress acts irresponsibly, indifferently, or not at all, is the issue foreclosed forever? Not at all. Instead, Dr. Viera suggests that the time will come when the Justice Department will attempt to enforce, through criminal prosecutions, some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign into law. Then, "as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity," a class of litigants with absolute standing will come into existence.

With Obama occupying the Oval Office, that day has already arrived. We need only to await the courageous individual(s) who will stand on principle, demanding that the laws they are required to obey were signed into law by a president eligible to do so...that they are, in fact, the law of the land.

Above all, the American people must understand what it means to simply ignore Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution...for no better reason than that it would be incredibly messy to remove Obama at this late date. For one to take that position, one must then also be willing to cavalierly set aside other provisions of the Constitution, such as the 1st Amendment rights to religious freedom, free speech, a free press, and the freedom of assembly; the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms; the 4th Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure; the 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination; and the 7th Amendment right to trial by jury.

Are we to question citizenship rights for African Americans under the 14th Amendment, black voting rights under the 15th Amendment, women's voting rights under the 19th Amendment, or the eighteen-year-old vote under the 26th Amendment? And how about presidential election voting rights for District of Columbia residents, guaranteed under the 23rd Amendment?

It is safe to assume that, among these latter groups...blacks, women, 18-20 year-olds, and DC residents...there are a substantial number of Obama voters. Are they truly serious about simply ignoring Article II, Section 4, while demanding that we hold fast to everything else in the Constitution? Would they have their cake and eat it too?

The United States Constitution means exactly what it says...nothing more, nothing less...and if we expect to reap the benefits of its many rights and freedoms we cannot allow the document to be selectively enforced. Stay tuned, America.

Citing a conflict with Judge David O. Carter's hiring of a lawyer from the firm of Perkins Coie, law firm hired by Obama to keep his personal records sealed, Attorney Orly Taitz Esq. filed a Motion To Reconsider the case of Barnett vs. Obama.

Judge Carter dismissed this case on Oct. 29, 2009, stating the case needs to be filed Quo Warranto in a DC Court, where Obama resides. Several attorneys have considered filings of their own in this manner. The Motion is requested for November 20.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6002 

As Judge David Carter stated in his dismissal, this particular type of case is to be filed in a DC Court, under Quo Warranto. This is a case that needs to be handled in a state where "Obama/Soetoro" resides, and Congress is to handle it.
It makes sense to go this route, and one can only hope that DC Courts will be neutral and fair.

Recently, we posted an article about Judge David O. Carter hiring Siddarth Velamoor. Velamoor was an attorney with Perkins Coie, the law firm paid by "Obama" to block any subpoenas for his records.
Well apparently, it paid off. Judge Carter dismissed Orly Taitz's suit, claiming it needs to be heard in a DC Court, and Congress needs to address it. It was quite a different tune from Carter's first reaction, that there was merit here, and this needed to be addressed.
No evidence, or conflict of interest?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21815599/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-89-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-REGARDING-DEFENDANTS-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-56-See-document-for-details-Defendants-Moti

This is the actual email I sent to these two producers of Bill O's show.  Please feel free to share it and/or use it as a guide to write your own complaint.  Their email addies are below:

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:03 PM
To: rob.monaco@foxnews.com; ron.mitchell@foxnews.com
Subject: Regarding Bill O'Reilly denigrating DR Orly Taitz last night!

Please tell me no one actually got paid for producing that slam job of DR
Orly Taitz of last evening?  You do understand the woman EARNED that title
of DR, right?  That means she is educated in more than one profession and
has acquired licensed credentials in several, including as a dentist and a
lawyer.  Can any of you make the same claim?  How many professional
licenses, or degrees do any of you hold?

I would like to know if Bill O'Reilly enjoys his job and fat regular
paychecks?  Do you?  If any of you do not want to be facing the possibility
of losing yours, then I suggest you start doing your jobs and present a fair
and balanced view of the news your network management loves to brag about.
Because from where I am sitting, it looks like Bill O'Reilly has pimped
himself out to the WH for thirty pieces of silver and you aren't far behind.

Moderates and conservatives gave your network and show it's ratings by
supporting you both.  If Bill O'Reilly, the producers of his show and the
network do not start exhibiting some respect for us and displaying an
understanding of our very legitimate concerns that a usurper is squatting in
the WH, we sure can find other shows to support who do respect us and our
views.  Especially if your biased "reporting" continues covering up for
Barry Soetoro's lack of citizenship.  We are not "birthers", conspiracy
theorists, nut jobs, crazy, or any other derogatory labels you people are
putting on us. We are your bread and butter.

I would strongly suggest that you call and invite DR Orly Taitz, Capt
Barnett, DR Orly's private investigator Neil Sankey, who is a former
Scotland Yard detective with more than 20 years experience, or DR Alan
Keyes.  Perhaps since all these people with all these educations and
experience have managed to supply enough evidence to get a trial date before
Federal District Court Judge David Carter on Jan 26th, you might pay a
little more attention to the FACTS unearthed by so many people.  Try doing a
minimum of research on a subject before you trash your targeted news
stories.   And if these people do agree to come on your show, try not to
denigrate them when they are your guests.  For if you do not do it now, when
it matters so much to US (your viewers), you can expect us to demand your
pink slips when you are proven to be wrong and have aided in injuring our
country.  If you have no respect for us, then we have no interest in you or
your show either. 

Linda Starr
Feminism: (noun) the radical notion that women are people.
Well behaved women seldom make history!

Also, I understand that Steve at www.theconservativemonster.com is organizing a protest rally outside of Fox News in two weeks if anyone is interested in participating.

http://theconservativemonster.com/2009/10/28/bill-oreilly-smearing-orly-taitz.aspx

 

I don't know how many saw the "Birther segment" on the O'Reilly Factor tonite. It was disgusting ! Please get some letters and phone calls to Fox.

 

I wrote this, please feel free to use it as you will

Neil

 

 

Neil Sankey

Simi Valley, California nsankey@thesankeyfirm.com

 

805 520 3151

 

Mr O'Reilly,

You owe us an apology. Using the term "Birther" is itself an intent to be derisive, to which I object. My interest in Obama's Birth place is the enforcement of our precious Constitution, so should yours be.

Your whole attitude was derisive and displayed YOUR ignorance of the facts.

Lis Wiel's answer to your question was totally erroneous, everything she claimed is just plain provably WRONG.

He has not proved himself to be Natural Born (and cannot have been) He did NOT show a Birth Certificate (That "piece of paper" has been shown to be a forgery) NO case has EVER been adjudicated on its merit, the facts have NOT been heard in Court There IS no proof he was ever born in Hawaii Furthermore the refusal of the media to accurately discuss this problem is yet another example of your corruption.

DOCTOR Orly Taitz is a Dentist, Attorney and speaks six languages, she is fighting to get the TRUTH heard. WHY dont you have HER on to answer your questions?? Come on, redeem yourself!

(Her phone number is XXXXXXXXXX)

Neil Sankey

 

From Orly Taitz's website

Posted on | October 28, 2009 |

I challenge you Mr. O'Reilly to interview me..

I am Captain Pamela Barnett U.S. Army Retired of Barnett v. Barack Obama.

I am sick and tired of you defaming our lawsuit and our attorney against the Resident in the Whitehouse Obama.  48 plaintiffs mostly military retired have brought this lawsuit to force the production of Obama's vital records to determine if he is in fact a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN which is one of the requirements to be a legal POTUS and NOT an illegal USURPER.  There is also a huge amount of information regarding fraud that Obama committed before being illegallly sworn in as POTUS.

IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH AT ALL.. YOU WILL CALL ME...

FROM WHAT I CAN SEE OF YOUR SHOW, THE TRUTH DOES NOT SEEM TO MATTER TO YOU OR THE REST OF THE SHILLS AT FOX.  I KNOW THAT YOU ARE ONLY A COMMENTATOR, BUT AT LEAST GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE HURTING OUR CASE AND PROPAGATING LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Sincerely, CPT Pamela Barnett, USA Retired

Pamela Barnett
pb_realestate@yahoo.com
Sacramento, CA
US
4158467170
IP Address:98.208.106.53

From Orly's page and The Page And Email website



http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=4991

UNIMAGINABLE, UNBELIEVABLE, OUTRAGEOUS MOVE by John Charlton

In a stunning blow to the impartiality of the American Judicial system, Federal Judge David O. Carter, who is hearing the case Barnett vs. Obama, has just hired a lawyer who works for a law firm where Robert F. Bauer, one of Obama's top lawyers is a partner. And that, just days before the Oct. 5, 2009 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, in which his demeanor radically changed, according to Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Siddharth Velamoor is the lawyer chosen by Carter to serve as one of his two official clerks, from Oct. 1, 2009, till Sept. 30, 2010, according to Wikipedia. Velamoor is listed as an associate with Perkins Coie, LL's office in Seattle, Washington.

Robert F. Bauer, is a partner of Perkins Coie, LLP's office in Washington, D.C.. His bio at the company identifies him as holding the Chair of the Political Law group at the firm; general counsel to Obama’s Campaign for America and general counsel to the Democratic National Committee.

Since Siddharth Velamoor could ostensibly loose his job or be blacklisted by Perkins Coie, if the case did not go Obama’s way; his presence in Judge Carter's chambers clearly impugns the integrity of the court, and will be the cause of dismay among the general public.

Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. scored a big hit today, when the Honorable Judge David Carter solidified Hearing and Trial dates in Obama's eligibility case. No word yet on granting Discovery, we will post more information as it comes in.

On September 8, 2009, the Court previously set tentative case management dates. The Court now orders those dates be made final.
Case Management dates are as follows:
Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing -- December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
File Motion for Summary Judgment -- November 16, 2009
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment -- November 26, 2009
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment -- November 30, 2009
Final Pretrial Conference -- January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
Jury Trial -- January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=4727