Marco Rubio and eligibility ~ By Robert Klein Engler

Robert Klein Engler brings up some very intriguing points in this column regarding Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and the issue of his Constitutional eligibility to even serve as Vice President of the United States. Because of the questionable eligibility issue regarding the "natural born citizen" requirement in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, Rush Limbaugh may not have had it right when he "endorsed" Rubio.

Engler offers very plausible reasons why Marco Rubio can't get the VP slot on the GOP ticket. But what makes this commentary really worth reading is that Engler provokes some thoughtful consideration regarding the eligibility issue. What if there is a potentially great GOP candidate on the 2012 ticket, like Rubio, that may not meet the same eligibility standards that the "birthers" are saying that Obama doesn't meet? What happens then?

RELATED STORY:

• Rush Limbaugh predicts: Marco Rubio will be president

*     *     *     *

Marco Rubio and eligibility

By Robert Klein Engler

September 09, 2011 ~ 4:03 pm Eastern

© 2011

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Sen. Marco Rubio's star is rising in the Republican Party. There is talk he may be on the ticket as a candidate for vice president once the party picks its candidate for president. If it's up to the birthers and the Country Club Republicans, Rubio's place on the ticket may not materialize.

For years, the birthers have been treated with disdain by the left and mainstream media. Part of this disdain is generated by fringe elements in the birther community. If the media can overlook these fringe elements, they will see that many birthers are loyal Americans who simply want the U.S. Constitution to be respected. In short, the birther argument against Obama and possibly Sen. Rubio is a constitutional argument.

There are many in the birther camp who argue that when the U.S. Constitution says being a "natural born citizen" (Article II, Section 1) is one qualification to be president and vice president, it means that both parents of the candidate must have been U.S. citizens when the candidate for president was born.

They argue that to be a natural born citizen of the United States requires not only birth on U.S. soil but two parents as U.S. citizens as well. This argument is not spelled out in the Constitution but is an interpretation of the unique phrase "natural born citizen." Nevertheless, there are valid and strong arguments in favor of the two-parent position. Writing in WND, Drew Zahn sums up these arguments.

At the end of his summation, Zahn adds, "The U.S. Supreme Court, for its part, has admitted the Constitution does not define what is meant by 'natural born citizen' and hasn't offered a ruling to solve the dispute."

The very fact that the high court has not defined what "natural born citizen" means is why Marco Rubio will not be a candidate for vice president. Nobody wants to raise this issue in court, let alone Republicans or Democrats.

READ MORE on WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB 
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE! 
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Memo to Congress: It's called freedom of speech

Syndicated columnist and commentator Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News that the objection to reading the Constitution aloud by many on the left "is truly astonishing."

He said that in the 1960s, "Liberals got in trouble for being on the wrong side of the flag," and are now in danger of being on the wrong side of the Constitution, which he called "the essence of America."

For liberals to think there's an advantage in dismissing the public reading of the document "is real bad politics," Krauthammer said.

Theresa Cao was arrested for "conduct intended to impede, disrupt or disturb sessions of Congress." Is it a freedom of speech issue? If so, isn't it ironic that the disturbance came during the reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives?

Memo to Congress: It's called freedom of speech

Defense counsel takes on case of woman arrested for gallery comment

By Bob Unruh

January 20, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

The woman who burst out with "except Obama" when New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone was reading in Congress the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born Citizen" was simply exercising her free speech rights, according to a law team representing her.

THERESA CAO

"This case is not about President Obama's eligibility for office or Theresa Cao's affiliation with the birther movement – it's about free speech in its purest sense," said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute.

Whitehead told WND he's helping Cao defend against charges she violated a congressional code against conduct intended to impede, disrupt or disturb sessions of Congress, for which she faces potential fines of up to $500 and/or six months in jail.

"The sad irony here is that Ms. Cao was arrested for exercising her constitutional right to free speech at the very moment that Congress was making a show of reading aloud the Constitution," Whitehead said.

"One can't help but wonder whether Congress actually understood anything that they read," he said.

As WND reported, Cao was arrested Jan. 6 by Capitol police, given a court date and then released. She told WND in a telephone interview after her release, while she was standing in front of the Hart Office Building near the Capitol, that the only hope for the United States is a return to the faith of the Founding Fathers.

And that direction, she said, is opposite from the one Obama is leading the nation. Cao contends Obama is moving America toward "socialism," citing his health-care plan and the takeover of private banks, insurance companies and car companies.

She said she had come to the U.S. House chambers to see the launch of the new Congress under the leadership of the Republicans. She was overwhelmed, she said, when the Constitution was being read, which came about as part of an effort by the new GOP majority to return the nation to its founding principles.

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., was reading Article II, Section 1, regarding the requirement that the president be a "natural born Citizen," when she burst out, "Except Obama."



"Literally if this question of the natural born citizenship, if this question does not get answered, then I am allowing a tyrannical dictator – the spirit of the anti-Christ, the new world order system that has their plans right this second to collapse the U.S. economy, and we know their plan, the new world order system's plan is to literally destroy humanity," she told WND at the time.

THERESA CAO PROTESTING AT THE WHITE HOUSE

Whitehead told WND it's a troubling sign of the times in the U.S. when someone is arrested for saying a couple of words when the response from the House was a much greater disruption.

The Rutherford Institute statement said the House was engaged in the "symbolic gesture" of reading the Constitution "to acknowledge that the United States is a nation of laws, not men."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Resolving the Obama eligibility question ~ By Paul R. Hollrah

Because of the great controversy of this question of President Barack Hussein Obama's Constitutional eligibility, I felt that this would be an important column to post tonight. And before you write if off as just another rant by another crazy "birther," here is the bio information about the column writer, Paul Hollrah:

Paul R. Hollrah is a freelance writer living in the lakes region of eastern Oklahoma. He is a retired corporate government-relations executive and a two-time elector in the U.S. Electoral College. He is a contributing editor for FamilySecurityMatters.org, the New Media Journal and the National Writers Syndicate.

Now, if media giants such as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh would just read this, maybe they would gain an honest understanding of Obama's questionable eligibility, and be the catalyst to launch a public outcry, which is what is needed. As Paul wrote, "Then, and only then, can we expect Democrats, in the interest of protecting their own careers, to demand that he leave." Just sayin'...

With each passing day, the damage Obama does makes the future of our democratic republic more and more problematic. Will the nation be able to survive six more months, let alone two and a half more years, of his social and economic tinkering?

If consensus can be reached on the questions surrounding Obama's dual citizenships and the definition of the term "natural born," then all of the remaining questions about his origins and his true identity will become academic – mere fodder for the history books.

By Paul R. Hollrah

Posted: June 15, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Never in American history has a national leader served under a darker cloud of suspicion than Barack Hussein Obama. Was he born in Hawaii or in Kenya? Did he become an Indonesian citizen in 1967? Where did he spend the summer of 1981? Did he actually attend classes at Columbia? Did he write "Dreams From My Father"? These are all interesting questions, but not the most critical ones. By far the most critical question relates to his eligibility. Is he eligible to serve as president, or is he a usurper? Let's analyze what we actually know to be true.

First, we have the absolute and unequivocal requirements of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

We know that Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was ratified, we know that he was at least 35 years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we know that he has been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. But is he a natural born citizen? What is a "natural born" citizen? And how do we prevent an individual who is not a natural born citizen from becoming president or vice president?

To answer these questions we must examine how our political leaders, from the Founding Fathers through the present day, have defined the term "natural born"; we must understand U.S. government policy on dual citizenship; we must examine the circumstances of Obama's birth and citizenship; and finally, we must examine the vetting process that was designed to prevent an ineligible person from ascending to the presidency or the vice presidency.

What is a 'natural born' citizen?

When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve 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 conceivable that, just five years and 11 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 – i.e., an individual with dual U.S.-British citizenship – to serve as president or vice president of the United States? Not likely.

That is precisely why the framers found it necessary to include the words, "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the 13 colonies was a British subject. And since they wished to exclude those with dual citizenship from serving as president or vice president at any time in the future, they provided an exemption of limited duration for those who were alive at the time and who might later aspire to lead the nation.

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 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: "Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

Clearly, those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments knew what it meant to be a natural born citizen, but what of our political leaders of today?

In the early months of 2008, at a time when Hillary Rodham Clinton was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination and only those in the "tinfoil hat" brigade of the party were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Sen. John McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural born U.S. citizen.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were assigned the task of researching the issue. In a March 19, 2008, memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, "based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers' intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain's birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a 'natural born Citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution."

Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008, statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, "Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen (emphasis added)."

This was followed by an April 30, 2008, Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0. The resolution declared: "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

It is important to note that all four references – the 1866 Bingham statement, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement and the U.S. Senate Resolution – utilize the plural terms "parents" or "American citizens," strongly implying that the "natural born" question rests, in large part, on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.

U.S. government policy on dual citizenship

The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. …

U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. …

The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it ... because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual-national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law. … However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. … (emphasis added)

Barack Obama's citizenship status

Barack Obama tells us that he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, to an American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and to Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British colony at the time.

Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, reads, in part, as follows: "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. …"

Obama's father, a Kenyan, was a British subject at the time of his birth. Therefore, under British law, it is clear that Obama was born with dual U.S.-British citizenship "by descent" from his Kenyan father and his American mother. However, following Kenya's independence from Great Britain on Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya's newly-adopted constitution went into effect.

Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the Kenyan Constitution provides as follows: "(1) Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama Sr.) … shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963. Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya. [Both of Obama's paternal grandparents were born in Kenya.]

"(2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama Jr.) … 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."

In other words, on Dec. 12, 1963, Obama lost his dual U.S.-British citizenship and became, by automatic operation of Kenyan law, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya. However, Kenyan dual citizenship had its limits. Chapter VI, Section 97 of the Kenyan Constitution provides as follows:

"(1) A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament."

Subsection (7), referenced above, gave the Kenyan parliament the option to provide a grace period during which dual citizens could make their election of nationality after reaching age 21. Obama did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenships; they were his by "automatic operation" of British and Kenyan law and "by descent" from his father. There is no evidence that he ever took steps to renounce either his British or his Kenyan citizenship.

The vetting process for president and vice president

The process established for the selection of a president and vice president provides three vetting opportunities. The first occurs immediately following the nominating conventions when the parties certify their candidates to the state election boards so ballots can be prepared.

All of the documents provided to the 50 state election boards by the Republican National Committee in 2008 contained, verbatim, the following affirmation:

"We do hereby certify that (at) a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the United States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz. ..."

The documents contained the names and home addresses of John McCain and Sarah Palin and were signed by John A. Boehner and Jean A. Inman, chairman and secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Republican National Convention, and notarized by Sheila A. Motzko.

However, certifications provided to the state election boards by the Democratic National Committee were not uniform. The certification provided exclusively to the state of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, contained the following affirmation:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."

The remaining 49 states received the following certification:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:"

Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The document was signed by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, chairman and secretary, respectively, of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson.

The phrase, "… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution" was purposely omitted. Other than that, the two documents were identical … even to the misspelling of the word "through" in the second line of the certifications.

This tragic anomaly of American political history was first reported by writer J.B. Williams in a Sept. 10, 2009 article, titled, "The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don't Lie." Immediately upon publication of Williams' article, Obama doubters across the country began contacting their state election boards, requesting copies of the Democrat and Republican Party candidate certifications, and the full scale of the Democrats' deception was uncovered.

So, why would the Democrats eliminate the language certifying that Obama and Biden were both eligible to serve "under provisions of the U.S. Constitution"? Is it not reasonable to assume that they knew when they nominated him that Barack Obama was ineligible to serve by virtue of the fact that he is not a "natural born" U.S. citizen?

So the question arises: What did Nancy Pelosi know, and when did she know it? And is it Pelosi's certification of Obama's eligibility that the state of Hawaii now relies upon in their refusal to disclose the details of his long-form birth certificate?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

McCain 'birther' ad rattles J.D. Hayworth

I'm not sure which is worse: McCain's attack on J.D. Hayworth for being a "birther" (though he's not), or, J.D. seeming not to question the birther issue all that seriously. In the story, it says that Hayworth told WND, "I never said, as an advocate, that it was a concern." Hayworth added that "lefty blogs claim that because he discussed the issue, he must be a supporter of it."

At a January town-hall meeting in Surprise, Ariz., McCain reportedly disagreed with an audience member on Obama's birthplace and questioned whether being born in the United States should still be a requirement for presidential candidates.


"If someone (was born elsewhere) and came here as a 1 year old, and served a productive life, I'm not sure," he said.

Senate challenger: 'I believe he's a citizen of the country. Case closed'

By Chelsea Schilling

Posted: February 24, 2010 ~ 11:20 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A new political campaign ad for Arizona Sen. John McCain attacks "birthers" – and specifically assails McCain's challenger J.D. Hayworth for referencing the topic of President Obama's eligibility.

"It smacks of desperation," Hayworth told WND. "I think John's a good man who is getting some very bad advice. I think this will provide a backlash that sadly, but accurately, portrays the level of panic in the McCain campaign. It's most unfortunate."

The ad begins, "These are serious economic times. Yet some are consumed by conspiracies."

The campaign ad for McCain can be seen below:

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Fox News entertainers can't get story straight ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah

Posted: February 12, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Let me preface this commentary by explaining that I do not watch either Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck.

I don't have to.

WND visitors send me so many video clippings from these shows, pointing out the good, the bad and the ugly, there's no need for me to devote two hours a day tuned to the tube.

Lately, it seems, O'Reilly and Beck have been teaming up – doing each other's shows. Such was the case recently when Beck visited the set of "The O'Reilly Factor," where they exchanged ignorances on what we call "the eligibility issue."

One thing this pair has in common is their steadfast belief that Barack Obama has somehow proven he is constitutionally eligible to serve in the White House – or so they suggest. They routinely engage in ad hominem attacks on "loons" and "conspiracy nuts" who believe otherwise.

To say Beck and O'Reilly are obsessed with ridiculing Americans who believe the Constitution has been dishonored by Barack Obama's steadfast refusal to release any meaningful documentation of his eligibility, his education, his travels, his health and his life story in general would be an understatement.

They are on a mission – one that apparently requires them to be less than honest about their own beliefs on the matter. Either that or they are both terribly confused about what they believe.

What do I mean?

Beck was on O'Reilly's show a few days ago bantering about their favorite topic – the lunacy of people like me and probably most members of their audiences. (You can see this video below.)

And there was O'Reilly, again, last Friday, weaving one of the most fantastic conspiracy tales ever conceived – that Obama actually wants Americans obsessing about his birth certificate. In fact, he suggested, Obama created this issue intentionally.

"I think the reason they didn't ever produce the birth certificate is because they wanted these loons out there," he told Beck.

Did you catch that? O'Reilly has been telling the world for months and months that Obama has released his birth certificate. But here is O'Reilly contradicting these assertions by admitting Obama has done nothing of the kind – a fact an increasing number of Americans already know.

In other words, O'Reilly slipped.

And Beck was right there to catch him – prop him up again, get him back on the script.

"Hang on," Beck reminded O'Reilly. "I think he has produced the birth certificate, the one that Hawaii ..."

"We have a facsimile," O'Reilly asserted. "But I want him to send (the original) directly to me."

The story keeps changing. I've seen O'Reilly say time and again that he doesn't care about the original birth certificate – that he could see it any time he wanted. Now, suddenly, he wants it sent to him. Why? I thought he wasn't curious about it. I thought he was satisfied with Obama's cover story. I thought he believed those wanting to see it were nuts.

READ FULL STORY >

'Birtherism' and anti-communism ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah

Posted: February 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Back in the 1950s, the Communist Party USA was on the ropes.

Most Americans understood the threat posed by a totalitarian, foreign-directed organization hell-bent on destroying their way of life from within.

But then the Communists got a brilliant idea. They launched a campaign against anti-communism.

Anyone who spoke out against the party was derided as a "red-baiter." They "saw Communists under every bed." They were delusional.

Fellow travelers and useful idiots were recruited into the campaign against anti-communism. Soon, it became less popular and less "cool" to be an anti-communist than to be a card-carrying member of Josef Stalin's subversive operation "inside the belly of the beast."

Why am I reliving this history?

Because the very same kind of drill is being run today against another righteous American cause – the deep and visceral concerns that Barack Obama has never been held to prove his constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

READ FULL STORY >

Obama's missing year ~ By Jack Cashill

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Jack Cashill

Posted: February 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Until last week, I had avoided the swamplands of Barack Obama's origins, a place from which reputations rarely return.

What prompted my interest was a reader inquiry into a poem by then 19-year-old Obama called "Pop," a cynical bit of work almost assuredly written about his maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, or "Gramps."

In researching the meaning of the poem – Obama's oeuvre being my own personal swamp – I came to a conclusion I had not anticipated, namely that there is a full year missing from Obama's biography, his first year.

According to the standard Obama biography, Barack Obama was born to the 18-year-old Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. on Aug. 4, 1961.

The accepted story line is that the brilliant, charismatic Barack Sr. had swept the quiet Ann off her feet, impregnated her, married her and left reluctantly for Harvard after a year of nurturing the baby Obama in Hawaii.

As I discovered, some of this story is fully false, and all of it is suspect. The false part involves the year after Obama's birth, 1961-1962.

As Jerome Corsi first revealed in these pages, "Stanley Ann Dunham" enrolled for classes at the University of Washington at Seattle on Aug. 19, 1961, 15 days after Obama's presumed birth.

As is clearly documented, Ann attended class at the university through the spring semester with baby Obama in tow for at least some large part of this adventure.

The apolitical Washington state historical blog, HistoryLink, confirms Ann's arrival in August 1961, identifies her Capitol Hill apartment in Seattle, names the courses she took and documents an extended stay by Ann and little Obama into the summer of 1962.

WND readers may already know much of this information, but somehow it escaped the four book-length biographies I consulted (including one by the New York Times), the several long-form magazine and newspaper bios I researched, the official campaign biography and Obama himself in his 1995 memoir "Dreams From My Father."

READ FULL STORY >

Obama eligibility attorney charges case rife with fraud

From WorldNetDaily

Asks court for 'evidentiary hearing for possible criminal prosecution' By Bob Unruh Posted: January 08, 2010 ~ 8:05 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily An attorney who has been involved in several cases alleging Barack Obama isn't qualified to be president because he is not a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution now is asking a California judge in investigate possible fraud against the court. Orly Taitz, who has, among other cases, one pending at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a member of the military wondering whether orders from Obama as commander-in-chief are valid, said the possibility of fraud is one of several concerns in the case. "There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and Social Security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution," she wrote in her latest arguments that also request the case be moved to Washington, D.C. She noted the respondent, Obama, "has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another." She also asked that the U.S. attorney's office, which has been representing Obama's interests in the case, be barred from participating "due to the obvious inherent conflict of interest." Taitz told WND a hearing is scheduled Jan. 25, and the outcome is up to Judge David Carter. The judge earlier dismissed the case in a ruling that noted the appropriate venue would be the District of Columbia, where Obama's political office is based. WND reported earlier when she argued to Carter that since the defendant's lawyers have admitted D.C. would be the proper jurisdiction, the case should be moved. READ FULL STORY >

What conspiracy theory? ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: August 14, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I keep reading about how I am part of a "conspiracy theory" because I want to see Barack Obama release his birth certificate to prove he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president. What is that "conspiracy theory" I am promoting? Many of those questioning my commitment to the Constitution are clearly cavorting with conspiracy themselves. They speculate that my motivations are racist. After all, Barack Obama is the first black president. I'm slightly lighter skinned than he is. Voila! You have the makings of a grand conspiracy. Admittedly, it's a little thin. There's no actual evidence suggesting I have ever expressed any racist ideas or racist thoughts in my life, despite writing millions of words, giving hundreds of speeches and spending thousands of hours broadcasting my often-controversial views. But, they say, it's obvious. Criticizing or calling into question anything the first black president says or does now equates with racism. I would put forth the proposition that those holding such views are not only mentally unbalanced, but they are dabbling in the worst kind of conspiracy mongering, not to mention ad hominem insults of the most vicious kind. So, again, I have to ask: What conspiracy am I promoting? Some say there is overwhelming evidence of Barack Obama's status as a "natural born citizen," and, therefore, it takes a conspiracist to deny it. To this I say, "Where's the evidence?" Without an undisputed birth certificate, signed by a doctor or midwife, naming the precise location of the birth, the exact time and place, the parents and the circumstances, there is not even a basis for a conclusion. [READ COMPLETE STORY]

Establishing presidential eligibility ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: August 11, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Last fall, American voters were given a choice of two major candidates for the presidency – John McCain and Barack Obama. Both of them faced questions about their constitutional eligibility to serve. McCain was not born in the United States. He was born in Panama to two parents who were U.S. citizens, his father serving in the Navy. To make his case for eligibility, he submitted all required paperwork to U.S. Senate investigators. Obama's story was different. He claimed to have been born in Honolulu and provided to select news organizations and an outfit called FactCheck.org, associated with a former Obama employer, the Annenberg Foundation, a copy of what he claimed was a Hawaiian "certification of live birth," an unsigned document that provided no information about the hospital in which he was born and the doctor who supervised the birth. The U.S. Senate found, in a unanimous vote, that McCain was eligible because his parents were both U.S. citizens. But no investigation was conducted by the U.S. Senate or any other official government agency into the eligibility of Obama. Instead, Obama was found to be eligible only by FactCheck.org and the select news organizations provided with the documentation by the Obama campaign. In other words, it was a total breakdown of the electoral system. Nobody asked Obama to prove he was eligible. He was indeed certified as eligible by one prominent government official – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, not acting in her official role, but rather acting in her private role as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. There was simply no mechanism in place to establish Obama's eligibility. He wasn't asked for proof by any of the states in which elections were held. He wasn't asked for proof by the Federal Elections Commission. He wasn't asked for proof by the Electoral College. He wasn't asked for proof by Congress. He wasn't asked for proof by the Supreme Court or any other court. McCain was certified by the U.S. Senate. Obama was certified by FactCheck.org and Nancy Pelosi. This is why there are still questions about Obama's fitness and constitutional qualifications for office today. And they are not going away. Since the system obviously broke down, the American people have been asking Obama to prove his eligibility to them – the ultimate arbiters, along with the Constitution, of who is fit to serve in the highest office in the land. Obama has been stonewalling them. He refuses to release the one innocuous document that could begin to unravel this mystery – his birth certificate. And, yet, clear-thinking, Constitution-observing Americans who continue to ask for the release of that document as a beginning of clarification of his "natural born citizen" status are ridiculed, mocked, caricatured, publicly humiliated, jeered, treated with contempt, disdain and disparagement by some of the very people who failed to do their jobs in the first place – those in government and the press. [READ COMPLETE COLUMN]

On The Birthers - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

29 Jul 2009 03:51 pm andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com — So many readers are furious that I have dared to ask the president to show the original copy of his birth certificate. The reason for demanding it is the same reason for demanding basic medical records proving Sarah Palin is the biological mother of Trig: Because it would make it go away and it's easily done. [CONTINUE READING]

I would have to agree with Andrew on this one. So why hasn't Obama done so? Is it because he can't, or is it that he is hiding something? Hmmm...

Where's the evidence? ~ By Joseph Farah

By Joseph Farah Posted: August 06, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 The cacophony is growing. There is a din of media outrage being expressed. Pundits and talking heads are losing their heads – not to mention their cool. Over what? It's not health care. It's not cap and trade. It's not even whether Barack Obama thinks black people are always right and cops are always wrong. It's whether the man sitting in the White House for the last six months is constitutionally eligible. About three months ago, some of you will remember, I set out to make this happen. I launched a billboard campaign with just this goal in mind – raising the visibility of the story, which had been all but forgotten because of the bailouts, the stimulus packages and the government grab for power under the new regime. "Where's the birth certificate?" was the campaign. Many of you criticized me for the choice of words. Yet, you bought up the bumper stickers by the tens of thousands. You erected the yard signs and held up the rally signs at tea parties. And you supported the billboard effort with financial contributions. Do you recognize what has happened in such a short time? You've made this an issue! This is why everyone can't stop talking about the "non-issue" of the birth certificate. One day Hawaii officials swear they inspected it. The next day, they deny it even exists. One day the hospital where Obama claims to have been born is sporting a letter to that effect. The next day the letter disappears and the hospital won't confirm his birth there. One day the official gatekeepers of the non-story insist he was born in one hospital. The next day they say it was a different hospital. None of this is supposed to worry us. We're just supposed to go along with the changing facts and accept that a higher authority has determined the truth for us. One thing that is severely lacking in all this late discussion of the "non-issue" – where's the evidence? It's a simple question. Where's the answer? I was interviewed by a big magazine this week. One of the questions I faced was: Where's the evidence for my position? My position is that Barack Obama has not proven his eligibility. The evidence for that is quite simple and self-evident – he hasn't. If he has, please show me. [CONTINUE READING]

Now you can watch eligibility story

Joseph Farah produces 1st feature documentary on Obama mystery Posted: July 24, 2009 12:00 am Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily WASHINGTON – WND Editor Joseph Farah has produced the first major DVD documentary on the critical issues surrounding the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president – but it wasn't easy. In fact, during the course of shooting and editing "A Question of Eligibility," the award-winning filmmaking team, including veterans of many controversial movie projects, made the unusual request to keep its identity secret for fear of retribution from the administration. "That's how hot this topic is," said Farah. "That's how hot this movie is." "A Question of Eligibility" is expected to ship to customers on Aug. 4, the date Obama claims as his 48th birthday. Preorders are being accepted exclusively at the WND Superstore. "I guess you could say it's a special birthday surprise for Obama," said Farah. "But, honestly, I don't think he'll like it. In fact, I believe the facts revealed in this documentary keep Obama awake at night. This eligibility issue is the only issue that threatens not only the future of his presidency, but almost everything he thinks he has already accomplished as president." In "A Question of Eligibility," Farah chose four key presenters to bring the issue home – WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi, the No. 1 New York Times bestselling author of "The Obama Nation"; Orly Taitz, one of the most visible attorneys involved in filing lawsuits challenging Obama to produce proof of his qualifications for office; Alan Keyes, a participant in one of those lawsuits, a presidential candidate himself, and the Republican candidate who opposed Obama in his successful bid to become a U.S. senator, the job that brought him to national attention; and Janet Porter, an activist and pundit who writes a weekly column for WND. "What we have produced here is a compelling and shocking documentary that will appeal both to those already steeped in the details of the eligibility story and those who need a video introduction to the major issues," said Farah. [CONTINUE READING]

Security Breach May Lead To Obama Natural Born Status

From The Right Perspective A series of 2008 security breaches at the US State Department may indicate that someone knows Barack Obama’s true status as a natural born citizen - and is waiting for the right time to reveal it. The breaches, which occurred on January 9, February 21 and March 14 of 2008, were done by two “low level” contractors and another in a mid-level position with no management role. Then- State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, who acknowledged the incidents, admitted that officials only became aware of them on the afternoon of March 20. According to a CNN report of the incident, “a State Department source said passport files contain scanned images of passport applications, birth date and basic biographical information, records of passport renewal, and possibly citizenship information.” It was shortly after this security breach that Internet rumors that questioned the “natural born” status of Barack Obama began circulating. At the time, McCormick said the breaches seemed to be “impudent curiosity” among the contract workers, who were not connected. Despite a very vocal call for a full investigation of the breaches by both the Obama and Clinton campaigns, the incident was quickly forgotten. [CONTINUE READING]