GREAT ARTICLE FROM OCTOBER 2008...A MUST READ!

Obama Election Creates Massive Constitutional Crisis
October 29, 2008 by
TruckinGal
Activist Courts Claim Voters Have "No Standing" to Sue for Citizenship Proof
The issue of Barack Obama's true citizenship has been ignored, swept under the rug and completely discredited by a partisan media. That does not mean, however, that the issue doesn't exist or that it is not of paramount importance in the 2008 Presidential race.
Far too many citizens allow their short attention spans or their adoring worship of "The One" to override the need for a serious and in-depth look at this issue. For the issue is far larger than simply Barack Obama's eligibility to become president of the United States and leader of the free world; this is an issue that has uncovered a serious omission in our Constitution-one that could be fatal to our Republic.

The Constitution plainly states that the President must be a "natural born citizen". There are serious questions as to whether Obama meets that requirement and it appears there is no true mechanism for demanding documentation through the courts. Past candidates have all been more than wiling to provide whatever documentation was requested to answer questions about their heritage, background and political philosophy-Obama hasn't.

The particulars of Obama's birthright to citizenship are somewhat complicated: his mother was barely eighteen when he was born to her and a Kenyan government official. The mother is no longer living-neither is the father. His birth was apparently registered on August 8th, 1961 in Hawaii-four days after his birth. However, no birth certificate has been shown. The widely displayed "Certificate of Live Birth" touted by his campaign as a Birth Certificate isn't - it is what it says it is: a certificate of birth simply stating the said individual was born. There are serious issues with the certificate in that most important information is missing, including the attending physician's name, the hospital, errors in the race attributed to Barack Obama Sr and other discrepancies such as the border of said certificate not matching the borders for that year's form and the fact that this is a laser-printed certificate-at a time when laser printing didn't exist. A typed, then copied form still shows distinctive typewriter characteristics even when printed - this one does not. Further, the laser printing does not line up sufficiently with the pre-printed form to meet official scrutiny as it cannot occur with the equipment it is printed on-it is photo-shopped. This has been verified by several experts, including those from Israeli Intelligence. The document has been "authenticated" by Factcheck.org-an offshoot of the Annenberg Foundation-who assures us they are impartial. Of course, Obama worked as head of the Annenberg Foundations Chicago Annenberg Challenge Grant Project for over five years. . . certainly nothing that would convey impartiality on the group that is widely referenced as proof the document is valid.

Obama's Kenyan grandmother has stated Obama was born in a Nairobi hospital while the mother and father were visiting his family. Because she was very close to term, Ann Dunham Obama was not allowed to fly home to Hawaii until after the birth, according to the grandmother. Kenyan hospital records have been sealed. It appears the birth may have been registered as a US birth by the mother when she returned to Hawaii four days later. That the mother was a US citizen isn't in question, however, US citizenship laws state that a foreign birth to an American citizen can be conveyed by the US parent only if they meet the requirements of having lived in the United States for a full five years after reaching the age of fourteen. Ann Dunham Obama was only eighteen when he was born, thus ineligible to convey natural citizenship if he were born abroad. The grandmother's statements of Kenyan birth have never been exposed in the United States although it appears to be relatively widely accepted in Kenya. We have heard no statements from the maternal grandmother in Hawaii. She is in seriously failing health.

After mother and father divorced, the mother Ann married an Indonesian citizen and emigrated from Hawaii to Indonesia. The new husband adopted little Barack somewhere-records not provided but likely in Hawaii as Indonesia did not appear to accept adoptions on their soil of foreign children at the time-and went ahead to Indonesia where he enrolled Barack into school as an Indonesian citizen named Barry Soetoro. So, once again, if Barack actually started life as a citizen of the US, he no longer was as Indonesia did not accept duel citizenship and was exceptionally particular as to citizenship due to political strife in the country at the time. When Barack was about ten, his mother sent him back to live with her parents in Hawaii-there is no public record that Barack ever went thru immigration at that point and likely simply traveled on an Indonesian passport. This is apparently the case, as Barack at twenty traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia, likely on an Indonesian passport as US citizens were not allowed into Pakistan at that time. It is unknown when Barack became Obama rather than Soetoro again-as records are not public without his authorization.

Barack attended Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard yet none of those college records have been released. There is suspicion that these records do not list Barack Obama as attending but instead, Barry Soetoro. Yet, when Obama applied to the Illinois Bar for his law license, he stated he had used no other name in his lifetime, effectively leaving his history as Barry Soetoro in the archives of several public offices behind the veil of privacy. If Obama/Soetoro did not apply for naturalization upon his return to Hawaii or at any time since, he is in effect, an illegal alien. If he DID apply for naturalization, he would then be a "naturalized" citizen rather than a natural-born citizen-not the same thing and not conferring eligibility to become President. It becomes obvious that there are several citizenship questions here that have never been answered. The Obama campaign has done absolutely nothing to clear up the facts and has screamed racism and other invectives at every attempt to ferret out the truth. For their part, they did demand-and receive-proof of John McCain's birth particulars and citizenship standing due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was in the military stationed there. In fact, Congress dealt with John McCain's status as a "natural-born citizen" and declared his eligibility to become President without question. The question of natural citizenship is just as valid today as when the Constitution was written: a country cannot allow a leader with possibly divided loyalties to take the highest office in the land. In this case, there are also issues in play that appear to show evidence of divided loyalties.

First, Barack's Kenyan father and his Indonesian step-father were both Muslim-Barry was enrolled in school as a Muslim and attended Muslim religious services there. The Muslim world considers Muslim birthright to extend from the father. Therefore, most of the Muslim world considers him Muslim and is overjoyed at the prospect of his election as they expect favorable treatment. There are credible reports that on his recent visit to Iran, Obama requested the leaders consider not settling their differences with the United States until after his inauguration, thus putting US soldiers at further risk for his personal advantage. There is also the issue of apparent massive, illegal foreign campaign contributions for the Middle East and Asia. Most of the world is talking about this issue. Only in the United States are questions met with resounding silence.

There is also ample evidence that Obama raised over a million US dollars to support a fellow Kenya tribesman in his effort to win election as Kenyan leader. Obama traveled to Kenya and campaigned for this tribesman for six days-a tribesman widely supported by the ten percent Muslim population but not the favorite of the other ninety percent Christian population. The films are available at YouTube. Evidence has surfaced showing that Obama helped Odinga with campaign strategy, including the strategy of claiming fraud if he lost election-all while Obama was campaigning here in the US. Odinga did lose the election and resulting bloody riots by primarily Muslim youth took the lives of over a thousand people and left nearly three hundred thousand homeless in one of the formerly most peaceful and democratic of African countries. Peace was restored only by allowing Odinga to share power with the elected leaders a "solution" brokered by the UN. Odinga also signed an agreement with Muslim leaders promising to institute Sharia Law into Kenya in return for their support-an issue that is causing continued dissention in Kenya today.

Both of these above instances show definite division of loyalty to the United States. This should be enough to make people question what and whom we are electing here. Obama would not pass security clearances for the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA or the military-and yet, we are now giving him security briefings.

However, this practitioner of constitutional law now has us up against the major hurdle in the Constitution we are trying desperately to cross - there is no definite process under the Constitution for a candidate's birthright citizenship to be vetted before campaigning. Ordinarily, this is done by the party officials - and appears NOT to have been done with Obama - for either the Presidential race or the Senate seat he now holds. Instead the Democratic Party has obfuscated the issue, passed the buck and flatly refused to deal with it, calling it all "Conspiracy Theory". Either the Democratic Party knows he is ineligible to run or they are a security risk themselves for their failure to assure his credentials. The entire mainstream media has refused to discuss the issues except in the same terms when pressed. It is difficult to understand this unless one examines the party line of both of these groups in relation to their sincere desire to institute European-style socialized global governance whether the voters want it or not.

Several lawsuits have been filed - nine at last count - with poor outcomes: the standard answer of the court is that the plaintiff does not "have standing" to sue for redress as they have not proven personal injury. It appears that there is no Federal lawsuit with a chance of being accepted as the federal courts have stated this is an issue for individual states to consider. Obama attorneys have taken the time to file for dismissal of these lawsuits yet have failed to put the issues to rest by producing a certified birth certificate. The Federal Election Commission has refused to file suit saying it is not their job. One lawsuit, brought by a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania and a life-long Democrat watched his petition for suit and discovery sit for a full 33 days-well beyond the legal limitations-before being denied. The Obama lawyers responded by filing for dismissal-but never produced the discovery documents as required by law even if the lawsuit was denied.

The federal judge, who has ties both to the former law office employer of Michelle Obama, Barack Obama and Bernadine Dohrn in Chicago and is an Obama supporter, finally denied the lawsuit with over thirty pages of mostly political comment apparently written in the law offices of Sidley, Austin of Chicago. He relied on this office (which employs his former law clerk) to provide proof of Obama's legal standing for election. No one has seen this documentation as of yet. This former deputy attorney general is appealing to the Supreme Court but there is no guarantee the issue will even be heard and even less that a reasonably-favorable ruling will be made before the election. If past experience is to be believed, they will likely again rule the plaintiff has "no standing" to sue. Indeed, if past rulings are to be believed, only individual electors in individual states or a candidate that can prove direct harm will be seen as having standing to sue for redress. The "standing" issue is being debated widely in several forums, including the Michigan Law Review-which was attempting to prove McCain ineligible to become President.

It appears the only person whose standing might be acceptable at this point is Hilary Clinton as she has definitely been harmed individually by his illegal candidacy. It is doubtful this will happen; the rift this would cause in the Democratic Party would be enormous as so many powerful Democratic supporters have thrown their political weight behind a likely illegal candidate. His election however, will create a Constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen: we must either remove Obama from office or change the Constitution to eliminate the "natural-born citizen" requirement. If the latter were to happen, it wouldn't be long before we would be inundated by all sorts of foreign-born candidates polluting the right of the People to elect their government from among their citizens. Not only would we open the field to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm, but George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and a host of foreign-born candidates with their own agenda could be expected to attempt to campaign. Happening now - at a time when the federal government has unconstitutionally internationalized our monetary systems, the American people would lose their country in a coup of massive proportions with no redress at the ballot box. To allow to stand rulings that the American people lack "standing" to even question the candidacy of a possible illegal alien removes from the People the most fundamental of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

This is a most serious issue - one far more serious that Obama's eligibility status. The harm that can be reasonably expected to occur from his election if he is proven to be a foreign citizen would open the entire Constitution up to revisions at the very least. In this climate of global influence and intrigue, we could expect to lose many of the freedoms we now enjoy such as most of the Bill of Rights. Most socialist countries of Europe have already removed many of these rights from their citizens. Much of the rest of the world never granted these rights to their citizens because they function under communism and Marxism. The United Nations has many of these goals written into the UN charter-we have escaped them only because our leaders dared not push these issues too far, both because of Constitutional prohibitions and because we can vote them out of power. Imagine removing that power, then. This must not be allowed to occur in this political climate - especially when the United States is being subjected to outside influences in the global monetary and trade spheres. We are in a weakened world position. Allowing Obama to cause a situation where wiser heads no longer prevail could take our country from us in ways many cannot imagine. Once it is gone, nothing short of civil war-with massive foreign interference-could ever take it back.

Is this the CHANGE Obama is campaigning on, then? A change that will forever alter the US Constitution so as to make it more amenable to International influence? Certainly many former Obama supporters have been unpleasantly surprised in recent weeks to find to their horror, Obama-brand

CHANGE likely means far more financial socialism than most Americans are comfortable with. This is the most secretive, most devisive candidate this country has ever seen before us. Why does he refuse to provide a certified birth certificate-something the vast majority of us can and do provide easily for a variety of reasons? Why does his campaign go to such great lengths to threaten, harrass and silence the media, individuals and public officials who question his campaign? Why does the Obama campaign-and Obama directly-encourage supporters to employ the time-worn false threat of racism in issues that are certainly not racial in nature? Do we want the entire fabric of our governmental system to be torn down and rebuilt by socialism and a new Constitution at a time when all of our financial situations have left us defenseless? At a time when it is obvious we will be given far less voice in the rebuilding process?

We don’t need this kind of CHANGE!