Updated:Several Lawsuits Challenging Obama Still Being Filed at Supeme Court

Well as Steve has often said, “It ain’t over til the fat lady sings” and she hasn’t sung yet. For those of you that don’t know…there are more than one lawsuit against Obama pending at the SCOTUS…The theory is that if enough lawsuits are thrown at the Supreme Court eventually they will have to hear one of them, even if it takes years, lawsuits are going to continue to be filed until this is settled. So continue to stay positive and PRAY

updated: 12/11/08

---

---

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

Supremes turn down request to stop Electoral vote

But Friday, high court will consider another case in flood of eligibility challenges

---

Posted: December 11, 2008
12:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Supreme Court has turned aside a request to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, in a vote scheduled for Monday, until Barack Obama documents his eligibility for the office under the Constitution’s requirement that presidents must be “natural born” citizens.

The action came in a case brought to the high court by Philip J. Berg, who alleges Obama is ineligible to be president.

Berg had asked the court for an injunction the stay the Electoral College votes and prohibit Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate from counting any votes until that demanded proof arrives.

The injunction was sought while Berg awaits the court’s determination on whether it will hear his writ of certiorari requesting review of a dismissal of his case in U.S. District Court in eastern Pennsylvania.

“I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States,” Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

Read the entire article at Worldnet Daily

“Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified,” Berg’s statement continued.

However, the high court, in a terse website entry, confirmed the application for the injunction was “denied by Justice [David] Souter.”

Updated: 12/10/08

The controversy, however, remains far from over. The latest ruling was sandwiched between Monday’s decision not to review arguments against Obama’s candidacy in the Donofrio v. Wells case from New Jersey and a conference that is scheduled by the justices this Friday on another case raising virtually the same concerns.

The case brought by Leo Donofrio alleged Obama does not meet the Constitution’s Article 2, Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for president because of his dual citizenship at birth, as does the new case, Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut secretary of state.

The Wrotnowski case had been rejected by Justice Ruth Ginsburg Nov. 26, but then was resubmitted to Justice Antonin Scalia. There was no word of its fate for about 10 days, then the court’s website confirmed it has been distributed for this Friday’s conference, a meeting at which the justices consider whether to take cases.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign up now!

More than a dozen cases have been brought into various courtrooms over Obama’s eligibility, many of which have been dismissed summarily. However, others still remain in the pipeline that could lead to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last month WND reported on the worries over a “constitutional crisis” that could be looming over the issue of Obama’s citizenship. The concerns were raised in a lawsuit in California, with lead plaintiff former presidential candidate Alan Keyes, asking state officials to prevent Electoral College members from voting for Obama until they investigated his eligibility, a case being handled by the United States Justice Foundation.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. A one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama’s birthplace in Kenya already was being recognized.

The California case for which Keyes is a plaintiff states: “Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the office of president of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the president of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

On the American Thinker website, writer Randall Hoven took a shot those who don’t want the question pursued.

Hoven cited a David Horowitz analysis that said, “What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil?”

“When the U.S. Constitution is clear on a matter, we are not supposed to re-think ‘what difference does it make to the future of this country.’ If we do this re-thinking at every step, we would not need a Constitution; we would merely cogitate on how proposal X will affect our future. In short, no need for a Constitution,” Hoven wrote.

He also cites a constitutional answer to the problem, quoting from the founding document; “If a president shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the president elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified …’”

“If we find that Obama is not natural born, then the Constitution says Joe Biden shall be president until the president thing gets sorted out. Everything about that is horrible. Unfortunately, it is exactly what the Constitution says we shall do. It does not ’suggest’; it says ’shall,’” he wrote.

He said the nation should be pursuing due process and due diligence.

“That, in my mind, is what we should be doing rather ignoring the entire matter because it is so unpleasant. We should also not be rope-a-doping the legal situation just to push the issue past January 20, 2009. Simply address the issue in a straightforward legal and constitutional manner.”

GOP presidential candidate John McCain during the campaign responded when his eligibility was questioned, due to the fact he was born to two U.S. citizens outside the boundaries of the 50 states.

In a column in Tulsa Today, several other legal challenges to Obama were listed. Besides the Donofrio, Berg and Wrotnowski cases, they include:

• A lawsuit by Chicago attorney Andy Martin in Hawaii seeking release of Obama’s vital statistics record.
• A case brought by the United States Justice Foundation in California on behalf of Alan Keyes, seeking to prevent California electors from voting for Obama until his eligibility is authenticated.
• A suit was filed in North Carolina by Lt. Col Donald Sullivan, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship.
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to document Obama’s birthplace.
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship.
• In Georgia, Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate.

Read the entire article @ Worldnet Daily.com

Updated 12/10/0/

The controversy, however, remains far from over. The latest ruling was sandwiched between Monday’s decision not to review arguments against Obama’s candidacy in the Donofrio v. Wells case from New Jersey and a conference that is scheduled by the justices this Friday on another case raising virtually the same concerns.

Keyes’ lawyers invite public to ‘join the fight’
High-profile eligibility lawsuit may succeed where others have failed

Posted: December 09, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A California public interest legal group has taken on a high-profile battle that already has at least three entire law firms lining up on the other side. But the group has promised to fight until a resolution is reached in the dispute over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.

The legal action by the United States Justice Foundation seeks to stop the state’s Electoral College voters, who already have been served with formal notices, from voting for Obama unless and until documentation proving his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office has been provided.

“For the sake of our Constitution and our republic, the issue MUST be resolved,” the legal advocacy group says in a new campaign seeking support for its work.

To explain the implications of not resolving the eligibility question before Inauguration Day, USJF gives several possible examples: “If President Obama issues an executive order to rescind the Mexico City Policy and allows the tax dollars of Americans to fund organizations that promote abortions overseas, the door to question the legitimacy of that executive order remains open.”

Thus, contends USJF in its lawsuit: “Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the office of president of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the president of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

“In other words, as long as this case is in the courts, a cloud hangs over Sen. Obama’s head. For the sake of our Constitution and our Republic, the issue MUST be resolved!” the legal group said.

The USJF team said its goal is simply to make certain that the Constitution’s clear requirements are met.

“Protecting the Constitution is not ‘garbage,’” the group said, responding to an earlier WND report in which an Obama campaign spokeswoman said of challenges to his eligibility: “All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage.”

Read the rest of this artlcle @ Worldnet Daily.com

We have WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 – whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia.  It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12.

We have Lightfoot vs Bowen ……….December 3, 2008, Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS Esq filed a second lawsuit in the Supreme Court of California; Lightfoot v. Bowen, docket number S168690. This is a “Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus for Stay”. The coversheet with the submission information can be found here.

Orly hopes that the California Supreme Court will either issue an emergency stay of the voting of the electors, or decline to hear the case because it is a federal issue. Either way, Orly hopes that the California Supreme Court will make this pronouncement in a timely manner.

You can hear Dr. Orly Taitz on Joe Thunder’s Radio Show December 4, 2008 HERE

There is also Chris Strunck of New York’s case. On October 17th New York citizen Christopher Strunk filed a Freedom of Information Request with the US Department of State seeking the foreign travel records of Mr. Obama’s mother. Thus far, the Dept. of State has not responded to the request. On November 10th, Strunk filed a Writ of Mandamus in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking an order directing the State Department to release the travel records. On November 14th the Writ was denied, without comment.

Then from Texas Darrel Hunter (Hunter vs Obama)

Dr. Orly Taitz says this now makes 5 Supreme Court cases, while cases from 15 more States may be headed up to the Supremes.

Note: This case is a second case from the great State of Texas; another previously reported here: Brockhausen v. Andrade. Still awaiting word on that one.

Update: A concerned citizen mentioned about an FEC Disclosure Report that might help Mr. Hunter achieve standing in this case. Further, it also appears that Mr. Hunter is a Democrat Texas State Senator and has made a run for President.

So as you see we have a long way to go….it’s not over yet!

Here is an excellent up to date blog  where you can keep up with everything….This is Leo Donofrio’s blog here on WordPress. Leo is the originator of Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz

A Gay Bible Coming?????

Here is an article from across the pond from the Guardian.  There will be people lining up in the US to defend this perversion as well:

Steve

Gay Bible angers Christians
Alison Flood
Monday December 1 2008
guardian.co.uk

A gay version of the Bible, in which God says it is better to be gay than straight, is to be published by an American film producer.

New Mexico-based Revision Studios will publish The Princess Diana Bible ? so named because of Diana’s “many good works”, it says ? online at princessdianabible.com in spring 2009. A preview of Genesis is already available, in which instead of creating Adam and Eve, God creates Aida and Eve.

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Aida, and she slept: and he took one of her ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from woman, made he another woman, and brought her unto the first. And Aida said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of me. Therefore shall a woman leave her mother, and shall cleave unto her wife: and they shall be one flesh.’ And they were both naked, the woman and her wife, and were not ashamed.”

The film studio said it would also adapt and direct the revised Bible as a two-part mini-series, The Gay Old Testament and The Gay New Testament, once it is completed.

“There are many different versions of the Bible; I don’t see why we can’t have one,” said Max Mitchell, who directed the science fiction comedy Horror in the Wind, in which an airborne formula invented by two biogeneticists reverses the world’s sexual orientation.

“I got the idea for the Princess Diana Bible from Horror In The Wind,” he added. “After the world becomes gay, religious people create The Princess Diana Bible, which says that gay is right and straight is a sin. Then they burn all the King James Bibles.”

The move has already provoked upset among Christians, with the blogger Douglas Howe at the Idol Chatter site describing it as “inspired by a political agenda and one person’s desire to contort not only the text but the very context of it to suit his own perspective”.

There was also criticism on Mitchell’s Princess Diana Bible site, where one commentator said the choice of title was “very disrespectful to the late Princess Diana ? It’s just one more thing to link her to what many people believe is immoral. Sad, very sad indeed.”

But Mitchell said: “There are 116 versions of the Bible, why is any of them better than ours?”

Strike 2, Obama 2, Constitution 0

OK, for all you doubting Thomases, the birth certificate that is supposedly real, look at the very last line.  We’re up against the wall with an incoming leader who wants to change our Constitution now.  I am highlighting some of the really important stuff.  Prepare yourself for the NEW WORLD ORDER!Read and weep:

Monday, December 08, 2008

---

WorldNetDaily
President-elect would seek changes in Supreme Court
‘Constitution a living, breathing document and more justices have to understand that’

---

Posted: December 05, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

 

---

WorldNetDaily

President-elect Barack Obama believes the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events and the U.S. Supreme Court needs to include empathy for the plight of minorities in its opinions, a new report has found.

The issues are raised in Fox News report in which Obama staff members affirm the Democrat’s goals. WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it does not mandate redistribution of wealth, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.

Fox News noted four of the Supreme Court justices are in their 70s, and Justice John Paul Stevens now is 88, so Obama is expected to leave a major footprint on the makeup of the court through possible appointments in the coming years.

Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who “understand” the plight of minorities.

(Story continues below)

 

In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, he said, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

Obama has committed himself to respecting the Constitution, but he said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.

Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, “His view is that our society isn’t static and the law isn’t static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that.”

Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, who is on the more conservative side of the philosophical spectrum in the Supreme Court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker.

And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.

Obama doesn’t support their vision of the Constitution, essentially as a document whose provisions still are controlling all aspects of U.S. law.

“There’s nothing wrong with voting against nominees who don’t appear to share a broader vision of what the Constitution is about,” he told the pro-abortion audience in 2007.

He even raised the topic during a campaign event at Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, saying one of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to guard against “encroachment” on the separation of powers.

Obama has complained Roberts has given in to the White House too much while on the bench.

“I think he has been a little bit too … eager to give an administration … more power than I think the Constitution originally intended,” Obama said in the report.

Barnes told Fox News that Obama is looking for “empathy” on the part of justices.

As WND reported, Obama said in a 2001 radio interview said the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

Obama told Chicago’s public station WBEZ-FM that “redistributive change” is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to “break free from the essential constraints” in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OKBut, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

The video is available here:

In his top-rated national radio show, Rush Limbaugh reacted.

The Constitution, he said, “most certainly does spell out things it must do on your behalf. He understands it. He just doesn’t like it.”

“He’s talking about giving things to people,” Limbaugh said. “This is perverted. Some people call this radical. I call it perverted.

“To me, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is a gift from God. It’s not a disappointment; it’s a blessing,” he said.

WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both  Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.

The issue of Obama’s own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Herlihy’s published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

NOW, THE BEST QUOTE OF ALL!

“The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the ’stupidest provision’ in the Constitution, ‘undecidedly un-American,’ ‘blatantly discriminatory,’ and the ‘Constitution’s worst provision,’” Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.”

Why is Our Country Failing?

My friend Carl sent me this.  I have always said we fail in the schools when we get away from basic stuff to teach our kids.  Do you remember that one of those basic courses that went away was Civics?  I have read several articles by Walter Williams, and have even heard him on the radio…he knows the problem, and has eloquently stated it here from the Jewish World Review:

Ignorance reigns supreme

By Walter Williams

How about a few civics questions? Name the three branches of government. If you answered the executive, legislative and judicial, you are more informed than 50 percent of Americans. The Delaware-based Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) recently released the results of their national survey titled “Our Fading Heritage: Americans Fail a Basic Test on Their History and Institutions.” The survey questions were not rocket science.

Only 21 percent of survey respondents knew that the phrase “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” comes from President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Almost 40 percent incorrectly believe the Constitution gives the president the power to declare war. Only 27 percent know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States. Remarkably, close to 25 percent of Americans believe that Congress shares its foreign policy powers with the United Nations.

Among the total of 33 questions asked, others included: “Who is the commander in chief of the U S. military?” “Name two countries that were our enemies during World War II.” “Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government?” Of the 2,508 nationwide samples of Americans taking ISI’s civic literacy test, 71 percent failed; the average score on the test was 49 percent.

ISI findings about cultural illiteracy and academic incompetence are nothing new. A 1990 Gallup survey for the National Endowment of the Humanities, given to a representative sample of 700 college seniors, found that 25 percent did not know that Columbus landed in the Western Hemisphere before the year 1500; 42 percent could not place the Civil War in the correct half-century; and 31 percent thought Reconstruction came after World War II.

In 1993, a Department of Education survey found that among college graduates 50 percent of whites and more than 80 percent of blacks couldn’t state in writing the argument made in a newspaper column; 56 percent could not calculate the right tip; 57 percent could not figure out how much change they should get back after putting down $3.00 to pay for a 60-cent bowl of soup and a $1.95 sandwich, and over 90 percent could not use a calculator to find the cost of carpeting a room. But not to worry. A 1999 survey taken by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni of seniors at the nation’s top 55 liberal-arts colleges and universities found that 98 percent could identify rap artist Snoop Dogg and Beavis and Butt-Head, but only 34 percent knew George Washington was the general at the battle of Yorktown.

With limited thinking abilities and knowledge of our heritage, we Americans set ourselves up as easy prey for charlatans, hustlers and quacks. If we don’t know the constitutional limits placed on Congress and the White House, politicians can do just about anything they wish to control our lives, from deciding what kind of light bulbs we can use to whether the government can take over our health care system or bailout failing businesses. We just think Congress can do anything upon which they can get a majority vote.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has one finding that I find both a bit perplexing but encouraging. Roughly 70 percent of Americans, even those who failed the test, agreed that our history, culture and institutions are important and should be taught to our college students. They might even agree with Thomas Jefferson who warned, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

Obama 1, Constitution 0

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a “natural born citizen,” one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama’s citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg’s lawsuit.

Will the people stand for it?

Print, TV ads demand citizenship proof from Obama
Concerned Americans look to media to compel president-elect to release documents

---

Posted: December 02, 2008
9:20 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 

Concerned citizens have taken yet another step to compel Barack Obama to release documentation proving he is a natural-born citizen – by funding a full-page “Open letter to Obama” in tomorrow’s issue of the Chicago Tribune.

American donors have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the We the People Foundation to sponsor the advertisement. It appeared in the main news section of the newspaper yesterday and is scheduled to run again tomorrow morning.

We the People Foundation’s letter to Obama scheduled to run in Chicago Tribune

The letter, signed by Chairman Robert L. Schulz, is a petition for redress of what the group claims is a violation of the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 1):

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.

“Dear Mr. Obama,” the letter begins. “Representing thousands of responsible American citizens who have also taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, I am duty bound to call on you to remedy an apparent violation of the Constitution. Compelling evidence supports the claim that you are barred from holding the Office of President by the ‘natural-born citizen’ clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a “natural born American” as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND’s petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.

Schulz lists the following reasons citizens are concerned about Obama’s status:

• You have posted on the Internet an unsigned, forged and thoroughly discredited, computer-generated birth form created in 2007, a form that lacks vital information found on any original, hand signed Certificate of Live Birth, such as hospital address, signature of attending physician and age of mother.

• Hawaii Dept of Health will not confirm your assertion that you were born in Hawaii.

• Legal affidavits state you were born in Kenya.

• U.S. Law in effect in 1961 denied U.S. citizenship to any child born in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19 years of age.

• In 1965, your mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and you had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen.

We the People said it chose the Chicago Tribune because it is the principal newspaper in president-elect’s hometown with more than a half-million readers. Obama is said to be one of them.

The letter states Obama is “under a moral, legal and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence” and that he may invite a “national crisis that would undermine in domestic peace and stability of the Nation” if he assumes office as a “usurper” without meeting natural-born citizenship requirements. It claims Obama would not be entitled to allegiance, obedience or support from U.S. citizens, the armed forces or civilians in the executive branch if he “usurps” the office – rendering legislation requiring his signature and his orders “legally void.”

We the People requests that Obama provide its team of forensic scientists with his original birth certificate on Dec. 5, 6 and 7. The foundation is currently raising $20,000 to cover the expenses of employing the forensic team in Hawaii. The letter also demands delivery of documentary evidence of Obama’s citizenship before the group’s scheduled press conference in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 8.

The petition concludes with a warning:

All state Electors are now on Notice that unless you provide documentary evidence before December 15, that conclusively establishes your eligibility, they cannot cast a vote for you without committing treason to the Constitution.

Another newspaper advertisement

The Chicago Tribune letter is the second high-profile newspaper advertisement of its kind. Another ad challenging Obama’s natural-born citizen status appeared on Page 5 of the Nov. 17 edition of the Washington Times.

Advertisement appearing on Page 5 of Washington Times’ Nov. 17 issue

Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, a Democrat who is pursuing the issue by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court, posted a full-page ad requesting donations and posing the following questions:

“Was Barack Obama born in Kenya?”
“Is he really a citizen of Indonesia?”
“Does the Constitution still matter?”

The ad states, “Obama says he’s qualified. But, Berg, multiple legal suits and a growing number of American citizens are saying: ‘Prove it.’ A basic, vital and Constitutional request.”

Television commercial

Now Illuminati Pictures, the same company that produced the video of expert Ron Polarik, has filmed its own 60-second television commercial regarding Obama’s citizenship.

 

WND columnist Janet Porter of Faith2Action, is working on funding the new ad for release on television. Her website is accepting contributions for the project until Dec. 15.

“These are the facts,” she wrote. “The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen. Obama’s grandmother said she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate. Instead of a birth certificate, Obama’s campaign posted a certification given to those born abroad. Experts have called even that document an ‘obvious forgery.’”

Porter said $12,000 buys a national 60-second ad on Fox News between 5 and 6 p.m.

“I say let’s buy a few of those and publicize it so the rest of the world finally hears about the constitutional crisis we’re in,” she wrote. “Then, the Bill O’Reillys, Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs may decide to cover the story of the century.”