BREAKING: Two Developments
NUMBER ONE
If The Supreme Court Decides...?
At this point, Supreme Court Justice David Souter's Clerk informed Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who brought the case against Obama, that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied, but the Clerk also required the defendants to respond to the Writ of Certiorari (which requires the concurrence of four Justices) by December 1.
At that time, Mr. Obama must present to the Court an authentic birth certificate, after which Mr. Berg will respond. (emphasis added by lp)
If Obama fails to do that, it is sure to inspire the skepticism of the Justices, who are unaccustomed to being defied. They will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.
"I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate," says Raymond S. Kraft, an attorney and writer. "They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power - even over presidents, even over presidents-elect."
Also remember that on December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution.
NUMBER TWO
Draft of WTP full-page ad to be published in
USA TODAY the week of November 10, 2008:
An Open Letter to Barack Obama:
Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?
Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the "Natural Born Citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father's native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg's claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked "standing."
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, "[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a "natural born" citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual's exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation's highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required "Oath or Affirmation" of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I'm sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I'm sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation's business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People's mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your "vault" (original long version) birth certificate;
(b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
and Barry Dunham;
(c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
(d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
(e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
University and Harvard Law School; and
(f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name
from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
"In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz,
Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-ad.htm
--
The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance. Their deeds may be small, and almost always unnoticed, unmarked by history. Their names are not remembered, nor did these authentic humans expect their names to be remembered. I see their authenticity in an odd way: not in their willingness to perform great heroic deeds but in their quiet refusals. In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what they are not.
-----
That would be a most interesting dilemma which I would love to see.
Now, now Marvin....you know that this is "only a right wing conspiracy to beat down and suppress the African American community"...(how was that for Politically Correct? I don't want to get called a "RACIST"....)
1. Barack Hussein Obama
2. Barry Soetoro
3. Barry Obama
4. Barack Dunham
5. Barry Dunham
6. LUCIFER ??
What the hell DO we call him? I got a few word in mind but I'm sure the hell not going to call him Commander In Chief!!
How about Mr. President. >:( >:( >:(
Well...........I do agree with this, and support who ever is willing to pursue it...but unfortunately, don't believe for a second that anything will ever come of this, but it would be great. (Don't want to get excited just to be let down again.) Let the scumbag prepare himself to move into the White House and even resign his seat in the Senate, then pull the rug out from under him. That would be an embarrassingly fitting end to a despicable political career. There would be a huge social fallout, however, as the ones that voted for BHO would riot in the streets.
Would it not be freaky if the electoral college for the first time used their power?? Most people don't know, the electoral college regardless of how their state voted, will cast the votes that elect whomever, and in this case, have the power to vote against the elected, regardless of how the state voted. I doubt they will do it, but what a message it would send.
I believe there are too many powerful people who want this man in office. And if they have to commit fraud so be it. I don't think the SCOTUS is up to this either. They do not want to be seen as the ones who invalidated the election of the first African American (maybe) president of the United States. We shall see but I'm planning for an Obama presidency nonetheless. :(
But we can always hope that justice will prevail......... :)
I heard some more about this on a talk radio this morning..........
As this request has gone on for months the questions I hear from many is "Why doesn't he just present the papers?" ???
"Why is he fighting something so simple and basic?"
It stands to reason.. that if you have nothing to hide.. then the request isn't a big deal..........it is a simple simple simple thing to produce.
on the other hand.......... if you do have something to hide and you are not being honest........................................
(http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/pow.gif) BUSTED!
I am unsure as to why you would lose citizenship by becoming a citizen of another country when current State Department policy as well as Supreme Court decision don't provide for the loss of citizenship in this case and the current law is retroactive.
Quote from: jerry wagner on November 14, 2008, 11:10:07 AM
I am unsure as to why you would lose citizenship by becoming a citizen of another country when current State Department policy as well as Supreme Court decision don't provide for the loss of citizenship in this case and the current law is retroactive.
You can't swear loyatlies to two countries. And there is a MAJOR PROBLEM if our CIC has oaths of loyalty to another country.
Quote from: Sarah on November 14, 2008, 01:47:38 PM
Quote from: jerry wagner on November 14, 2008, 11:10:07 AM
I am unsure as to why you would lose citizenship by becoming a citizen of another country when current State Department policy as well as Supreme Court decision don't provide for the loss of citizenship in this case and the current law is retroactive.
You can't swear loyatlies to two countries. And there is a MAJOR PROBLEM if our CIC has oaths of loyalty to another country.
Irregardless of your opinion, current state department policy clearly states that acquiring citizenship in another country, especially while a minor, does not revoke your current US citizenship.
The problem is that in Indonesia, when he was there, they did not allow dual citizenship so to become an Indonesian citizen he would had to have renounced his American citizenship. They claim he had to do this to go to school there. If he did indeed renounce his American citizenship, he would have had to take an Oath of Allegiance and receive a Certificate of Citizenship to get his US citizenship back when he came back.
That's my understanding of it at least.
If our pres-elect does manage to make it through the front doors of the White House...can you imagine it...I feel so sorry for the White House staff...After listening to Michelle O...I can't imagine working for her.
From..... Western Missouri Shooters Alliance
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81944
Proofin' the prez: Who's in charge?
By Bob Unruh
November 24, 2008
A one-time vice presidential candidate who is considered an expert on the U.S. Constitution says it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain President-elect Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15.
"If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," Herb Titus, the Constitution Party's running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996, told WND today.
"I think it should be resolved. The duty is in the Electoral College. Every Obama elector that is committed to casting a vote on the 15th of December, they have a constitutional duty to make certain whether Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he said.
If the electors fail their duty and Obama proves ultimately to fail the eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution, there would be only the laborious, contentious and cumbersome process of impeachment available to those who would wish to follow the Constitution, he suggested.
The issue of Obama's citizenship has been in the news for weeks as multiple legal claims have asserted the Democrat is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. There have been claims he was born in Kenya, that he's a British subject because of his father and that he lost his citizenship in Indonesia.
Two of the cases are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and several others that have fallen by the wayside.
Also, thousands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the U.S., not just assurances from party officials.
As of this afternoon, about 70,000 petitioners have joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor Joseph Farah.
To participate, sign the petition .. click on the webpage and that will taker you to where you can vote..
A report accompanying Farah's petition explains the many questions raised about Obama's eligibility, from an apparently fabricated "Certification of Live Birth" posted online to questions about what nation's passport he used to travel to Pakistan.
One case is scheduled for a conference among U.S. Supreme Court justices Dec. 5. Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
Do you agree with contentions made in "The Audacity of Deceit" about the impact of an Obama White House on the United States?
The case, unsuccessful at the state level, was submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas for conference Dec. 5.
Titus holds a law degree cum laude from Harvard, is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, and helped found a law school. He told WND the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted the electors, citizen voters from all the states, to determine the presidency to avoid chief executives who are indebted to political parties or court decisions.
In 1788, Titus noted, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers on the issue of the presidential election that "nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption."
"They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment," Hamilton wrote. "And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States," Hamilton wrote in support of the concept of the Electoral College.
If the electors fail, Titus said, "I think it moots the point."
"I don't think there is anything in the Constitution [that would allow a challenge based on a candidate's constitutional qualifications.]
"It would politically undermine Obama's re-election ... and there may be an impeachment if someone concluded he deliberately misled the people, and knew he was not a natural-born citizen," he said.
Titus said the evidence clearly shows there are questions about Obama's birth that should be resolved. But he said he doesn't believe the courts will do anything, nor should they.
"If it's revealed it's only going to be [revealed because of] investigative journalism or by Obama himself," he said.
"It's only the Electoral College that has the duty and authority to determine is a person is qualified to be president," Titus said.
"We should act accordingly, get the names of all the electors, including McCain's electors, and urge them to do their duty," he said.
He said, however, the bottom line is that there are some people who would rather ignore the Constitution than dispense with a candidate who may be unqualified.
"Politically, [being ineligible] would be a very serious problem for [Obama,]" he said. "But there also would be people who would only shrug."
"It's up to the people. Essentially the Constitution is a covenant of the people with their government. If the people don't insist on their government officials abiding by the covenant, I don't know what you can do," he said.
Titus said the basis of a natural-born requirement traces back to the Old Testament, where Moses prophesied about the people of Israel getting a king.
"The whole notion of a natural-born citizen is designed for the purpose of making sure that the chief executive would not have politically divided loyalties," he said.
Supreme Court would decide?
Meanwhile, a veteran law enforcement officer and director of criminal justice courses says he believes the 2008 election results ultimately could come down to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a ruling eight years ago that helped put George W. Bush in the White House.
The assessment comes from James H. Hafeman, a veteran of decades in law enforcement who supervised an armed security force, taught criminal justice and directed criminal justice programs in Michigan. He submitted a commentary to WND, outlining his evidence.
Hafeman said his argument is based mostly on the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the requirements for eligibility for president, including that the candidate be a "natural-born" citizen.
While replacing a president is outlined in the Constitution, he warned the replacement of a president-elect who is found to be ineligible isn't simple.
"While many have speculated that an official declaration of Obama's ineligibility may lead to the appointment of Joe Biden as president, the speculation is inaccurate. Since it was up to the respective political party to properly vet their candidate before a primary election, they may not qualify to be rewarded for their lack of integrity. Additionally there is no separate balloting for president and vice-president; they share the same slot. Obama's ineligibility would effectively void the entire Obama-Biden ticket," he said.
Therefore, he said, other provisions likely would come into play.
"We already know that if two candidates have an equal number of Electoral College votes, the members of the House of Representatives will collectively choose the president. Many citizens have been led to believe that it is the responsibility of the House is to decide the winner by majority vote, but that is incorrect. Members of the House of Representatives from each state would meet in a state-caucus type of meeting and vote with all congressional members from their respective state. The majority of the state's delegation would only have only one vote. Out of the 50 votes allotted among the House of Representative members, 25 plus a minimum of one vote would be required to elect the president," he wrote.
William Ball, a political science professor at Northern Michigan University, has said, "The results of the Electoral College are sent to the president of the Senate, but if there is no winner, then the House of Representatives, not the whole Congress, decides who will be president. But, in this process the State of Vermont or Wyoming with their one vote each would have as much power as California or New York."
Hafeman said the Constitution demands the same process for a situation in which a seated president becomes ineligible, but Obama won't be inaugurated until Jan. 20.
"This may be the first known case where a presidential candidate intentionally attempted to side step the specific requirements of the Constitution in order to run for the office of president," Hafeman said. "The 12th Amendment is quite clear. If the president is found ineligible, the vice-president shall become the president. However, the key is the 'president,' not the president-elect. In other words, if Mr. Obama is found ineligible to hold the office prior to his January 20, 2009, inauguration, the 12th Amendment would not necessarily be the guiding instrument for the Supreme Court.
"The Justices would be free to make their own determination regarding the specifics of the general election," Hafeman wrote.
So, Hafeman concluded, the high court may have to make some decisions.
If the worse fears about Obama's birthplace prove true, Hafeman said, the court will have to decide the consequences for providing inaccurate assurances of eligibility.
"Second, what process will be used to designate someone who will assume the office?" he wrote.
"Since all the secretaries of state will be forced to nullify the Obama-Biden ticket, the Electoral College votes would go to the next highest contender. The principle would award McCain-Palin with the total possible Electoral College votes – all 538 electors," he suggested.
"In the national-interest scenario, the question that might be asked by the Democrats may focus on the question as to whether or not they could hold an emergency national convention in order for the party to re-nominate a president and/or another vice-president candidate. If the Supreme Court declares the entire election invalid, then that may be a possibility, but it is highly unlikely since every other presidential team on the ticket were legitimate," he wrote.
"The Supreme Court may decide a new election is in order and would have to waive the two-term limitations of George W. Bush so that he can remain in office until the conclusion of the election. The continuation of his term is a viable course of action, but it may not be an action favored by the Supreme Court. Instead, the justices may simply view the anomaly as a political race with an illegitimate and disqualified opponent, which would result in a win for the McCain-Palin ticket."
On WND's new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:
"What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?" asked one reader. "Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself ... Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?"
Other comments included:
"Obama won his first election ever by getting three Democratic opponents thrown off the ballot? He's all for using the law to help himself win. Wouldn't it be ironic if he is not allowed to serve as president due to the law? ... Turn around is fair play!
"Even the left-wing liberal news media is beginning to ask the question: 'Who is this man we have elected? We really do not know much about him.'"
"Obama's refusal to produce the ORIGINAL given birth certificate gives us all pause. His silence on these allegations is deafening. The anointed one believes that if he can hold us all back until he's in the Oval Office he's hit a home run and he's 'safe.' Ah, not so! Check your law, Obama, and you will see that even if were to make it to the White House you will no longer be able to hide behind those red velvet ropes."
"There must be something that would have caused him great harm prior to the election, and would have stopped him from becoming elected. What could that little piece of information be?"
Don't expect this Prez Elect to be forthcoming with any honesty regarding the country he was born in...if he had to be honest, he'd more than likely lose his ability to serve...and then he'd have to pay back all of the gazillions of monies that he's so blithely accepted.
I am starting to hear ..quite alot.. in just listening to conversations..
When someone says he is our first black president.. I am hearing more and more.. " no he is NOT black.
And I say............
**he sure looks black to me**.but what do I know.. I'm blond... :D
I had an interesting conversation with a very close friend of mine who is black. ( He knows I am NOT racial at all and also that I am against Obama being in the Presidents position for his agenda.. not his his color )
I will tell you what he said....
For the record..... he was NOT in favor of Obama..so he had some interesting things to tell me. He also said that in the black community of his colleagues .. this discussion had come up quite often. And now with the question of his legally birth state.. it was really a topic of conversation..
He told me that normally.. people don;t care if anyone is part this or that.. but in this serious position of office.. lots do care.
Especially about the legal statis of his birth.
He is ..in color... white + black............
Obama isn't black. 'Black,' in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slave.
Even though Obama is half-white, he strongly resembles his Kenyan father. So..most people acknowledge him as a black man.
This is all well and good.. who cares actually.. No one..
( and I agreed) ..
he went on to say:
So his mother was from America.. and his father is from the heart of Kenya.
That has been established... but WHERE was he born? and WHY won't he give and hasn't been forced to give medical papers to the government to which he has applied for this position.
he didn't like McCain either... but he did say .. if there had been even a knats hair of doubt on McCain or Palins birth and medical records.. you can bet everything in the bank that they would have tared and feathered them until they turned over every shred of evidence that had been scrutinized under a microscope.
And you know?........................ He is right.
If there is nothing to hide and no lies that have been told..
just turn the papers over...
easy I would say....
but me thinks there is way too many lies that have been woven.......on many many levels with this man.
Doesn't that bother anyone who voted for him??
Amazing.....just amazing. ???
From: Newsmax.com
Date: 2/24/2009 6:04:18 AM
Sen. Shelby: I Haven't Seen Obama's Birth Certificate
Sen. Richard Shelby has revisited an earlier controversy by suggesting that Barack Obama is foreign-born and not eligible to be president.
The Alabama Republican met with constituents in Cullman County on Saturday, mainly to discuss the economic stimulus bill, which he opposed.
But a local resident asked Shelby if there is any truth to allegations that arose during the presidential campaign concerning Obama's place of birth, the Cullman Times reported.
"Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate," Shelby said.
"You have to be born in America to be president."
Shelby is correct in stating that Obama has not released his birth certificate. Instead, Obama's campaign released his certification of live birth — not his actual birth certificate. The certification acknowledges birth but does not include such details as place of birth.
State officials in Hawaii sought to stem the controversy during the campaign, claiming that they had checked health department records and determined that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.
Also, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama's birth that was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, nine days after his birth. It included his parents' address in Honolulu.
Arch-conservative Alan Keyes is among those who allege that Obama has failed constitutional muster to become president. Keyes, a former U.S. ambassador who ran against Obama in 2004 as the Republican Senate candidate in Illinois, said in a recent interview that Obama was born in Kenya.
Obama could put the urban legend to rest by simply releasing his actual birth certificate, but he has declined to do so. Since his place of birth in Hawaii is identified on his still undisclosed birth certificate, he is one of the few U.S. presidents whose location of birth is still not known to the public.
In a Seattle Washington college classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple:
the candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age.
However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen.
In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming President.
The class was taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating,
'What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?'
<GROANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN>
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj216/marshalette/laughing-1.jpg)