To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution.
The "eligible" President-elect Obama - Or the great pretender to the Presidency?
The chasm between those who want President-elect Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate to verify his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office and those who simply support the Democrat is widening.
"The Constitution means what we today decide it means," opined one participant on a new WND forum that offers readers an opportunity to express their opinion on the birth certificate dispute.
Meanwhile, as many as 110,000 have signed WND's petition seeking full disclosure of Obama's information.
The petition cites the U.S. Constitution's requirement that no one can be sworn into office as president without being a natural born citizen. It also asserts there are questions about Obama's reported Hawaii birth, that the Democrat has refused repeated calls to document his birth, that activist judges have declined to require him to shed light on the issue and that Hawaii – at the time of Obama's birth – allowed parents whose children were born in other locations to registered the birth there.
WND's petition is available online, and more information is available at this link.
It calls on all controlling legal authorities to take seriously the matter of where and when and to whom Obama was born and whether he qualifies as a "natural-born American citizen," according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
To participate, sign the petition here.
Joseph Farah, founder, editor and chief executive officer of the leading independent online news source, said the highly unusual step was needed because the argument cuts to the core of the clear and simple meaning of the Constitution.
Learn about what America can expect from an Obama presidency in Brad O'Leary's blockbuster, "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values."
Farah used his daily column to explain more fully the importance of the issue.
"No news organization or anyone else has investigated this matter more thoroughly, devoted more manpower to it, committed the financial resources to it or taken it more seriously," Farah said. "Yet, despite the obvious lingering questions out there haunting the American conscience, Barack Obama appears ready to waltz to the inauguration and swearing-in ceremonies without so much as proving he was born in America as he claims. That is simply unacceptable. I decided that if no one else was going to take this matter seriously, we would," Farah said.
In WND's forum, the division of opinion seemed unbridgeable.
Said one participant, "The Constitution means what we today decide it means. The Constitution exists to serve the people, not the people to serve the Constitution. … The precise nature and meaning of particular Constitutional clauses is a political question, to be decided by the people through our elected representatives, and through the judges appointed by the president we elect. That president will be Barack Hussein Obama, for at least the next four years."
Another reader responded: "The Constitution is NOT whatever we decide that it is. Such a concept is nonsense by which we could declare up to mean down and in to mean out. In such a worldview language loses all meaning and purpose and it becomes impossible to know anything at all. The Constitution is what is actually written down in its body and its various amendments. It is NOT whatever the judges declare it to be, no matter how fervently those judges desire for you to believe otherwise. There is a reason that the very first paragraph following the preamble states unequivocally that only Congress is allowed to make law. It means that judges do not get to tell us what the law is. Their Constitutional role is to decide cases, not to fold, spindle, and mutilate whatever they don't like."
Continued another, "We are a nation of laws, not what individuals might wish. And the Constitution is the first and foremost law. … BO has indicated in interviews that he thinks that founding document is too restrictive. Apparently he hopes to operate outside that law, beginning with his refusal to just present his original, long form 'vault' birth certificate and his university records or other documents to prove that he is actually a natural born citizen of the U.S."
"He could very well be pulling off the biggest fraud in U.S. history and thinks he can get away with it," said yet another.
The comments were in response to the forum question: "Barack Obama may have won the presidential election, but is he eligible to serve? That's a question on the minds of millions of Americans eager to see his birth certificate and find out for sure if he was born in the U.S., as he claims.
"At least two of his relatives in Kenya claim to have been present at his birth in Mombasa, Kenya. In addition, the Obama machine has scoffed at requests to see the form of the Hawaiian birth certificate that includes the specific hospital in which the delivery took place. The form released by the campaign does not include that information, leading to suspicions Obama might have been one of the foreign-born babies of the 1960s who were, nonetheless, provided birth certificates by the state of Hawaii."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=82222
17 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment