Give Us Liberty: From earlier this year...worth re-visiting again...

In-Depth: a question of legitimacy

12 April 2010: Few are willing to cover what is, perhaps, the most important issue in current U.S. history at a time when freedom in America is at its most vulnerable stage since the birth of this nation. The issue before us is one mired in controversy, hindered by contrived obfuscation, and deliberately downplayed. It is an issue containing both rational simplicity and legal complexity, yet it sufficiently lacks much of the former and is overburdened with too much of the latter. As American patriots, we are facing a constitutional crisis that is being both intentionally ignored or told does not exist.

The issue we cite is the legal eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of the American Presidency in accordance with Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

The path to question the legitimacy of Obama’s eligibility status is a minefield of marginalization, but in the final analysis, it is indeed the path most consistent with our character and courage as patriots who care about the current state and future of the United States. Embarking on the path to question Obama’s eligibility is to be labeled as conspiracy nuts, racists, bigots, or a combination of each. After all, we have been told by our politicians and media that Obama has provided sufficient documentation to hold the highest office of the greatest country in the world. We have been told and even scolded that such documentation has reportedly been verified time and again in every venue where it has questioned, and even in some venues where it has not.

The reality, however, is far from removed from what is being provided as the truth.

When the evidence is examined, we find that there has been no such authenticated documentation provided by Barack Hussein Obama, the Obama administration as a whole, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), the State of Hawaii, any member of the media, or anyone adhering to the assertion that such documentation exists and has been provided to the American people.

Readers might find this assertion preposterous, noting the abundant references to a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) once posted on the internet, and the recent statement from the head of Hawaii’s Department of Health about the Obama birth certificate. The former was never authenticated nor could it ever serve as a legitimate document for the intended purpose of Presidential eligibility. The latter is a carefully worded statement that fails to verify anything beyond the most obvious – that a document pertaining to Obama is on file in Hawaii.

Next, there are the multitudes of lawsuits filed in various courts across the U.S. that have been filed and dismissed. To address this avenue of recourse, one must examine each lawsuit on its own merits. Admittedly, many have lacked merit, while others have reportedly lacked standing. Most can and should be dismissed from this argument based on a combination of factors ranging from the lack of competence by the filers to the improper citations, legal issues raised, and venue. The most egregiously incompetent have been effectively used as the gold standard by those denying the legitimacy of this matter. Who could blame them?

Surely, any rational person would be led to the conclusion that the matter has be fully resolved, all questions asked have been answered, and what remains are the musings of a deluded bunch of malcontents with too much time and too little intelligence. The issue itself has become a lightning rod for lunatics, and what has been produced in many cases fodder for late night television and internet parodies.

Those who have yet to be convinced either way have appeared to embrace an equally dangerous “middle ground,” stating that the matter of Obama’s questionable eligibility, even if true, is a non-issue because he has already assumed office. To accept that position is to disregard the U.S. Constitution, at least in part, for reasons that encompass a wide range of logistical issues.

What cannot be refuted as absolute fact is that the man who ran his candidacy on a platform of transparency is the same man who has spent an estimated $1.8 million in legal fees to fight all attempts to produce a number of documents (traditionally released by every U.S. President in modern history), including the elusive $10.00 document at the center of it all that would once and for all answer the question of his origin and birthplace. Such imperious reticence transcends rational principals and raises far more legitimate questions about the reasons he has fought so hard against such disclosure than by the questions themselves.

To be clear, Barack Hussein Obama has been the least-examined Presidential candidate in American history, but the most aggressive in fighting against producing not only his birth certificate, but his transcripts from his undergraduate days at Columbia University, his “lost” thesis on Soviet nuclear policy, his “lost” Illinois Senate records, his medical records, passport records, application to the state bar, and an extensive list of other documents normally provided during a Presidential campaign. Obama’s promise and self-proclaimed penchant for transparency has turned to expending massive amounts of money and resources to prevent reasonable disclosure.

The world witnessed the most devastating attacks against America on September 11, 2001. Americans were murdered on a wholesale level, icons of American economic power were destroyed, and the base of our military might was struck by an enemy intent on destroying this country. Our unified outrage was appropriately palpable. During the seven years that followed, however, that public outrage became subjugated by a powerful and polarizing demand for change. This, combined with years of infiltration and methodical softening of the internal structure of the U.S. resulted in our present situation of unprecedented peril.

Less than a month after the 9/11 attacks, I walked among the debris at Ground Zero in New York with a police official. It was still a scene of unspeakable horror, and our conversation about the destruction and peril was somber as we talked about the nature of the existing threats to our country and way of life. Less than a week ago, I walked the same area with that same police official. Our conversation was equally somber, although our discussion at this time centered on the threats to our country and way of life from within. Who would have thought that a short seven years later, a virtual unknown named Barack Hussein Obama would not only occupy the White House, but enact a policy of national security that intentionally downplays the threat posed by the very groups of people who caused the carnage and promises more? Who is Barack Hussein Obama and what is he hiding?

Investigators with the Northeast Intelligence Network, together with journalists from Canada Free Press, have amassed a large amount of documentation pertaining to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama as U.S. President and Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. Starting this week, we intend to begin to methodically reveal our documentation, our evidence – direct and anecdotal, and the extensive information collected from a variety of well-vetted sources we have cultivated over the last 18 months. Our documentation and evidence will illustrate a cover-up involving not only Barack Hussein Obama, but by numerous political officials, both elected and appointed. Evidence that could not only withstand the scrutiny of the courts, but the skeptical mindset of the American public.

As some continue to downplay the eligibility issue and affirm, without proof or substance, that Obama meets the requirements to hold the highest office in the U.S., it is interesting to note that minutes from a March 2010 meeting of the National Assembly of Kenya suggest otherwise: