Archive for September, 2011

FEC Overrules Constitution on Citizenship … more

September 27, 2011

In an astounding ruling, the Federal Elections Commission has ruled that a “naturalized” citizen has the same standing as a “natural born” citizen. Abdul Hassan, an attorney born in Guyana, South America, and now a naturalized American citizen, convinced the FEC that to deny him the right to run for president is discrimination. The FEC agreed in that under the Federal Election Campaign Act a naturalized citizen is not prohibited from being a candidate for president.

The FEC’s ruling places the Federal Election Campaign Act above the U.S. Constitution in determining eligibility to run for President of the United States. Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly says that only a “natural born” citizen is eligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States. The Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on the definition of who is a “natural born” citizen (though historically it has been assumed to be a person whose parents are both American citizens), but it has also not ever indicated that a “naturalized” citizen is the same as a “natural born” citizen.

photo credit: atlas shrugs

The FEC’s ruling throws another wrinkle into the ongoing dispute over Obama’s eligibility to be president since his father was not an American citizen and the “birth certificate” the White House posted earlier this year has been pronounced a forgery by various computer document experts.

In another development in the continuing drama concerning Obama, a case involving former presidential candidate Alan Keyes challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president was considered by the  Supreme Court in conference on Monday.

To date the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear any of the cases challenging Obama, but attorney Gary Kreep is hopeful since his client was a presidential candidate and would presumably have “standing” to prove harm and have his case heard. A decision should be issued within a week or so.

As for a similar case that was heard some weeks ago before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, involving some of the same clients, and attorney Orly Taitz, but which also included an issue with Obama’s Social Security number being issued in Connecticut instead of Hawaii where he was from, no decision has come down yet. It is expected that when that decision comes down, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court by whichever side is ruled against.

At some point this tangled mess needs to be sorted out, but when that will be is a matter of great speculation as lawsuits have been filed challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president since before the election in 2008. So far not one case has been heard in any court based on its merits. Every court has ducked these lawsuits or passed them on. Sooner or later a trial and a ruling must be made: Is the Constitution still the supreme law of the land in the United States or not?


Obama Birth Certificate Compared to Genuine BC

September 12, 2011

Professional typographer, Paul Irey, received permission to compare Obama’s “birth certificate” with a genuine 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate from a person born in the same hospital about three weeks after Obama was supposedly born there. There are striking differences in the typefaces of the two documents. Whereas Obama’s document is obviously composed of a variety of typefaces, which would be impossible on a typewriter, the genuine birth certificate has consistent typefaces throughout.

Irey has over 50 years experience including 25 creating documents on Macintosh computers. He explains that metal typewriter keys cannot produce letters that vary in style and size, yet the Obama document is full of such inconsistencies. He concludes that the only explanation is that the Obama “birth certificate” is a computer-generated forgery, a not a very good one.

picture credit: Irey -- WND

Irey had recently traveled to Hawaii expecting to be able to examine Obama’s “birth certificate” with attorney Orly Taitz, but the Hawaii Department of Vital Records refused to honor the subpoena and they were turned away. Taitz filed court papers in Hawaii to compel the department to comply with the subpoena, but that has not been ruled on yet.

A few cases are still winding their way through the courts challenging Obama’s eligibility to be President under the constitutional requirement that the President be a “natural born” citizen. It will be interesting to see how the court reacts to the evidence that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.

9/11 Let Us Not Forget

September 11, 2011

photo credit: Atlas Shrugs

Judge Dismisses Obama Social Security Case

September 2, 2011

A federal judge in Washington D.C. has dismissed a case from attorney Orly Taitz requesting information from the Social Security Administration regarding Obama’s Social Security number. Questions have arisen since it was discovered that Obama’s Social Security number indicates it was issued in Connecticut, a state Obama never resided in.

Obama has said he grew up in Hawaii and therefore his Social Security number should bear numbers from being issued in Hawaii. It has been explained that the first three numbers of a Social Security number indicate the state that issued the card. Obama has offered no explanation as to why his number came from Connecticut.

Inquires about Obama’s Social Security number follow upon other lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be President which claim he is not a “natural born” citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution. Holding a fraudulent Social Security number is a federal offense and the lawsuit sought documentation on how Obama’s number was obtained.

Surprisingly to some, Judge Royce Lamberth said in his ruling that suspicion of fraud was not sufficient to grant the request and that the Privacy Act of 1974 protected personal information of number holders. Furthermore, the information on the number being possibly fraudulent was not his concern and he would ignore documents from the Social Security Verification System indicating such because they were obtained under false pretenses.

In short in appears that the judge has favored the Privacy Act of 1974 over the evidence that the man sitting in the Oval Office has a fraudulent Social Security number. Taitz has said that, using new evidence, she is submitting a motion for reconsideration. And so the drama continues.