Alan Keyes stokes Obama birth certificate controversy
The LA Times placed a picture of the facked birthcertificate under the article. I don’t include it here as I don’t think we have a need looking at that forgery anymore. See Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist for the video
The article itself is a prime example of how the main sleeze media persist in manipulation and cooperation with the usurper.
-David Crockett
The controversy over the validity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate is back on a burner with firebrand conservative Alan Keyes making serious new charges.
In a video released Friday, Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois that launched the new president’s national political career, calls Obama a communist and usurper and says he refuses to acknowledge the validity of Obama’s inauguration over lingering questions in the minds of many conspiracists about the 44th president’s birthplace.
The U.S. Constitution requires any president be born an American citizen.
In June, the Obama campaign released to The Ticket a copy of the then-senator’s Hawaiian birth certificate . But stubbornly persistent critics demand to see the original, which the state has refused to provide, citing personal privacy reasons.
And the critics, including Keyes explaining here, cite Obama relatives in Kenya as saying he was actually born there in his father’s native land when his American mother was too young to pass on her U.S. citizenship.
In December, as The Ticket reported here, the Supreme Court dismissed without comment a New Jersey lawsuit seeking to bar Obama’s inauguration due to questions over his actual citizenship. The Obama camp has proceeded normally as if there was no controversy.
Obviously, the inauguration proceeded, although on the advice of White House counsel as a precaution against a verbal muff during the noontime Jan. 20 public ceremony, Obama did take the presidential oath again that night in private with Chief Justice John Roberts. His White House lawyer feared igniting another simmering legal controversy if there was any doubt about the oath’s validity, although the Constitution stipulates the new president takes office at noon no matter what.
However, the dispute over his birthplace continues. Listen here to Keyes’ rather strong language.
This simmering dispute, occurring online and in e-mails coursing daily across the Internet, seems unlikely to evaporate any time soon.
– Andrew Malcolm
The LA Times is not authorized to write that:
” the US Const. requires any President be born an American Citizen”
and that:
“however the dispute over his birth places continues”
And then show the hawaiian certification of live birth, that writes he was born in hawaii whitout showing the true writing of the Const. NBC clause.
Mr Andrew MALCOLM’s interpretation of the US Constitution Art II §1 is false. because one word is missing: ” Natural’ of Natural Born Citizen.
The LA Times is changing the true words of the US Const.
The LA Times is not a loyal News paper.
The US Const requires a preson to be an US Citizen for holding the Office of Senator, Representative or Governor,
but for being elected President of the USA,
the person must be a Natural born Citizen of the USA
The dispute is not only over the birth places (soil)
but about the foreign citizenship of the father, the foreign citizenship of the sptepfather, and the age of the US minor mother, being too young to confer her US citizenship to her son.
Just because the parents of the US President must have his US Citizenship and US Allegiance.
That is the dispute.
And is verysimple for Andrew MALCOLM to see in the Certification of Live Birth the LA Times placed, that the father of the US President is not “born an American Citizen”, but an Alien, that only confers his foreign citizenship to his son.
The LA Times never heard about dual Citizenship?
The Suprem Court is authorized to read the US Constitution ART II §1, the US Senatate Resolution
N°511 and to decide if the LA Times is selling false informations to the Californians.
My thought is that Dr Orly and Mr Keyes have standing to ask to the Supreme Court if the LA Times tells the truth and decide specialy what is the definition of a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.
The Supreme Court definition of the US Const. NBC Clause is needed to help LA Times to write loyal information.
The LA Times is not paid by readers for wronging the Californians.
The Suprem Court owns the service of the truth about the meaning of the Const NBC Clause and has the power to make the LA Times to print the truth and to sell loyal Constitutional information.
I think even this being put out there for people to see is better than their complete silence on this matter. Maybe a few people will see it and start to question and do some real research of their own. If they do, I can’t help but think, they will come to the same conclusions we do, and demand he provide proof or be removed from office. We have a ursurper in the White House who must be removed ASAP, before he does any more harm than he already has.
The matter remains legitimate because it rests at the very heart of America’s essence with regard to it’s true identity and it’s constitutional authenticity. If our leaders can remain anonymous under legitimate scrutiny, how can we rely on them to defend us against our enemies and domestic tyranny? No real American, having served honorably in our military or in civil service, would ever honestly commit to service with a man like Obama. He is far too concealed to be trustworthy.
Despite the fact that many liberals would desire for the world to believe that the Constitution was written by old, expatriated, racist white men, the truth remains that our nation’s identity is built upon our citizen’s service and adherence to it’s laws. And, tragically, what message does it send to the citizens of a nation when the elected officials violate the same laws they pretend to uphold?
The word you are looking for is, “Despotic”.
The AOL story goes on, in dank liberal form, to paint the entire affair as a conspiracy theory propelled by the fringes of the conservative anti-Obama right. As though legitimate matters of Constitutional Law morally equate to a search for Bigfoot.
Only in the liberal mind could such absurd dissonance exist.
As insulting as the liberal media is to the intelligence of America, they remain secretly desperate to aid Obama’s covert leadership and help him conceal the unthinkable possibility of his “otherness”, and the resulting Constitutional crisis it will create.
Many rightly presume the probable impact on Constitutional integrity is the reason Obama, the mainstream media, including even Fox News, remains so unresponsive, if not outright secretive, about his actual identity.
The stick in the liberal craw, however, is that this man may indeed not actually be a natural born citizen, as defined by the commonly accepted interpretations of Constitutional Law, compliant with the factual history of previous American President’s natural born status.
The questions are easy to answer. That is why the issue rings so loudly in the minds of vintage America. The answers to the basic questions are not as obscure as sasquatch, or the existence of the lost city of Atlantis. The questions are answerable with a phone call.
Therefore, the effort and resources employed by Obama to keep these records concealed is disproportionate with the plausible consequence of revealing what he claims they contain. A confirmation of his eligibility to serve as president.
Obama spent 2 weeks in Hawaii in September. Long before this issue became malignant.
Obama is so brazened in his ploy to conceal these records, he has even abandoned his liberal constituency by imposing complete information “black out” about the issue. Sadly, instead of being allowed to confirm Obama’s true identity themselves, they are forced to trust the unreliable leftist propogandists of the Annenburg Foundation, Politico.com, the Daily Kos, the New York Times and the Huffington Post, all of whom probably know less than they do, as their sources. And, that’s a pretty pathetic lineup if objective, fact-finding, journalistic research is your interest.
Also, the hilarity in this, as with every other blind Obama sympathizer’s attempt to excuse away the facts, is that, despite irrefutable reality, this man has never actually produced any verifiable evidence to counter the facts of the conservative presumption. They simply claim that the presentation of liberal sympathizers are adequate for enthroning Obama.
And, after the debacle that resulted from the Supreme Court’s involvment in election issues in 2000, the SCOTUS judges have suddenly become convenient cowards in response the matter of Obama’s constitutional eligibility. Once again, they are derelict in their duty as interpreters of the law, when it is most needed. Yet, they seem ambitiously able to legislate matters outside of their jurisdiction when it agrees with their political views and moral ineptitude.
Regardless of the actual mysterious truth, Obama has submitted no confirmed record of birthplace, only a scanned image of a possibly forged Certificate Of Live Birth, which, as the State of Hawaii statutes prescribe, may be issued in any case where a living child is presented to the office of the Hawaiian Department of Health, regardless of the their actual place of birth anywhere in the world.
The scanned, altered image of the Certificate Of Live Birth presented on the Daily Kos was a complete hoax. And, a badly contrived one, at that.
The AOL story also falsely states, “For the record, officials in Hawaii declared last October that there was no doubt Obama was born in the state. Officials verified that the health department holds the commander in chief’s original birth certificate.”
This is a lie. The first sentence of this account is outright deceitful, while the second sentence is erroneous by omission.
No official working for the state of Hawaii has ever provided official confirmation that Obama’s Birth Certificate states that he was born in Hawaii. To the contrary, the State of Hawaii did NOT confirm Obama’s place of birth, but instead, the Department of Health’s Director stated, without any notarization, that the “birth certificate of Mr. Obama, on file with the state of Hawaii is an authentic document.”
The Obama Birth Certificate may indeed be authentic. An authentic Birth Certificate from another country.
The statement pronounced no such evidence if his birth within the state of Hawaii, only that the Birth Certificate on file, probably issued from Kenya, was delivered to the state of Hawaii and thus sealed and filed accordingly.
This, as well as many leftist’s desperate attempts, continue to fail miserably in their blatant campaign to distract the American public from the facts that Obama, whether or not a natural born citizen, has never provided verifiable, official documents in support of his claims of eligibility. And, that is a perfected conviction founded in undeniable truth.
The liberal attempt to cull this issue under the categories of UFO theorists and witchery is amusing as it is absurd. And it is a complete rendition fabricated through their degenerate lust for all things Obama.
As Obama proceeds through his first term as America’s first pretend president, the fact that this matter continues to gather interest, even from Obama defenders, is startling. One would think that something so “ridiculous”, as it is characterized by probamates, would be disregarded. But, on the contrary, it has gained momentum. Exponentially.
If this were indeed a fringe conspiracy theory concocted by conservative zealots then why does poll after poll find that nearly 50% of all equally mannered American’s continue to have doubts about this man’s identity? And, nearly 47% of internet savvy Americans believe this issue will actually come back around to harm Obama’s presidency, eventually.
And, what’s more, why does the liberal media complex continue to give attention to the issue?
AOL, and the liberal media should spend more time prompting Mr. Obama to make his identity public, instead of allowing him to walk between the inquisitive rain-drops of authentic Americans. Perhaps, if this pretender were actually “transparent” instead of just a hypocritical manservant of the liberal establishment, he might actually gain some respect and support from those offended by his dishonesty.
Mr. Obama has three options.
One, he will simply continue through his presidency under the justified accusations that he is usurper, and a political infidel without ever showing any verifiable, official documentation about his identity. With this choice, he will complete his presidency without ever having the fullness of credibility that he probably deserves, or the respect of the most American’s possible. America is, predominately, a respectful nation. We may not agree with some politics, but we know a real person when we see them. Obama is not a real person to America right now.
Second, he can sack up and throw down the gauntlet this official identity records and let the chips fall where they may. Just provide the exonerating records and move on. Doing so would end this inquisition and instill America’s confidence. It would help the democrat party’s future and end the doubts about Obama’s eligibility. America is pretty fair minded. Despite being constitutionally ineligible, or worse, an illegal alien, Mr. Obama might find forgiveness in the liberally dominated justice system and he will be allowed to serve out his term as an elected official pro tem. I think we could manage to allow him that given the crisis that would need to be averted.
Third, he can surrender and resign. That’s not going to happen, so it looks like he has two options.
Then again, you never know what choice the fringe might make, either.