Is Barack Obama eligible to hold the office of President of the United States pursuant to the terms of the U.S. Constitution?

Razzmatazz Killed Mother Wit... and Now He is Going After Our Constitution

November 2, 2008
by Don Snyder
RightSideNews.com
Is Barack Obama eligible to hold the office of President of the United States pursuant to the terms of the U.S. Constitution?
Abstract
A logical look at whether Barack Obama is eligible to run for President of the United States under the Constitution? Significant evidence shows otherwise, not the least of which is because Obama has snubbed any requests to provide certified copies of the required documentation. There is absurdity in Barack Obama's refusal to produce the documents. If there is usurpation, this is likely to cause feelings of suspicion and doubt among Americans on both ends of the political spectrum for years to come. In the end, it justifiably causes us to ask ourselves... "Can we trust the system to work?"
U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 "No person , or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

Of course the facts will eventually come out as they always do, but the question remains... Will "We the People" be robbed of our constitutional rights? The answer for now is simple; 300 million Americans do not know the answer, because Obama has snubbed any requests to provide a certified copy of; 1) Obama's "vault" version which is a certified copy of his original long version birth certificate; 2) a certified copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship; and 3) a certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance.
The latter two documents are equally important as the birth certificate in that Obama was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro who married his mother Ann Dunham Obama in 1967 and moved to Jakarta Indonesia. Lolo Soetoro enrolled his adapted son, Barry Soetoro (a.k. Barack Obama), in school as an Indonesian citizen. Both Indonesia and the U.S. at that time did not allow dual citizenship and by Indonesian law his adapted father would have had to renounce Obama's U.S. citizenship in order to enroll him in an Indonesian school. His school records, from two different schools, obtained from Indonesia show him enrolled as Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.

When he returned to the U.S. in 1971 at 10 years of age, if he were to regain his citizenship he would have had to apply through the state department for a Certificate of Citizenship by taking an Oath of Allegiance with the state department before his 18th birthday. His mother did not return with him and she, assuming she was still a U.S. citizen, was the only one who could have done this for him. Whether she did this is unknown. If she did, there will be records at the state department. It is that simple.

There is more evidence that Obama was born in Kenya rather than in the U.S., although this may have no bearing on his current citizenship status. Raila Amollo Odinga, Obama's distant cousin, who is the prime minister of Kenya, has shut down all government requests for his birth and hospital records until after the U.S. election. Simple logic says that action was not necessary if there is nothing to hide.

Then there is Obama's paternal grandmother, Sara Hussein Obama, who said that she was present in the hospital room when he was born in Kenya. She named the hospital and told the story about how Obama's mother Ann Dunham Obama was visiting Kenya close to her due date. She was denied boarding because the airline did not want to experience an in-flight birth. Obama's half sister and half brother not only corroborated that story, but also named the hospital he was born at in Kenya, as did his grandmother who claims to have witnessed Obama's birth as the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

On Sunday, October 26th, 2008, the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, sealed all of the records until after the election, except to Barack Obama and family, citing that it is the state law. Curiously this happened two days after he visited his ailing maternal grandmother in Hawaii on the 23rd and 24th of October. Then, on October 31, 2008 the health Department Director and the registrar of vital statistics released to the press that they have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. This is of no useful information to anyone. It doesn't verify where he was born, what country, what hospital, doctors, etc, etc, etc. If he was born in Kenya and Ann Dunham Obama arrived in Hawaii a few days later to register the birth, this would explain the Certificate of Birth.

In June of 2008, the National Review's Jim Geraghty asked the Obama campaign to release a copy of his birth certificate. He had been asked many times before but because Hawaii birth certificates are not given to anyone except family members it was not obtainable unless Obama released it. The two different hospitals in Hawaii which Obama and his younger half sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, said he was born at, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital, have no record of his birth. What we do know is that he claimed to be born on the 4th of August, 1961 and the Certificate of Birth he posted on his web site was not registered until the 8th at the health department. There was a notice in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser on August 13, 1961 announcing his birth, but stated no hospital, no doctor, no place of birth. All of this circumstantial evidence is meaningless until we get the long form certificate and the other citizenship forms from Obama. The only question which bears repeating is... Why doesn't Obama just give up his documented proof of citizenship?

The Obama campaign has done a masterful job of putting a multitude of "rumor killers" on the internet essentially arguing that it is just a smear campaign by bloggers, but [I submit] nothing could be further from the truth. This is about subtle misdirection by the Obama campaign, which they have achieved using diversionary smoke screens called sophistries. An original Sophist from ancient Greece named Antiphon suggested that it was in the human nature of man that the stronger dominate the weaker and that law was a violence done to nature because it repressed the natural order of things. That natural order was the predisposition of man [insert < Rich and Powerful] to pursue his dreams... unimpeded.

If you are working with a false set of realities, put forth by the special interests of others, then the results of your choices will give them freedom, but not you. Your choices may be rational, but without the correct facts to work with, your fate is sealed. What is real is not an option, it's mandatory. The nature of reality is that the ignorant are never given a second chance. Does nature excuse a person for good intentions?

Up to the present [one day before the Presidential election] Obama has not produced any documented proof that he is eligible to run for president of the United States. He has steadfastly ignored calls for production of the aforementioned documents. His posted announcement of birth is woefully inadequate to assure us of his heritage under the constitution and it does not provide us proof of his Oath of Allegiance and his Certificate of Citizenship.

Just as significantly, as many as five different forensic professionals have analyzed the Certificate on his web site [from the posted scan] and all have questioned its legitimacy. Barack Obama allowed two firms to come to his campaign headquarters to view it and they deemed it "adequate documentation", but as was later discovered, one was owned by Annenberg where Obama sat on the board of directors for 6 years and the other is a left wing blog. In other words; the conflict of interest is preposterous.

The question restated is... Does Barack Obama's have the constitutional qualifications to be president of the United States?

Most people act incredulous to these issues and usually argue, "How did he get a driver's license, get into college, marriage license, become an Illinois Senator, etc., etc., etc.?" Even more convincingly they argue that, "if that were true, they would have heard about it in the media." As to how he got into college and so forth, his copy of his birth certificate in Hawaii shows him to be an American because it was before he was adapted and given Indonesian citizenship. On the second issue, the media is in the tank [paid off] for Obama. Before you discount the ‘paid off' argument, using your common sense, remember that Obama has paid, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and others approximately 300 million dollars. Questions about his birth certificate are off limits at any of his rallies or news conferences, and everyone in the media knows it.

Here again, think for yourself. If he threw the reporters off of his airplane whose newspaper endorsed McCain, if he canceled the interviews with the Florida TV station who asked tough questions, what do you think the result will be if one of the major media outlets asks him tough questions about his citizenship documents? Answer: No more advertising revenue. These are not patriots... they are business people.

Recognizing what is fact and what is not, is the problem. Any amount of criticizing or commentary on your [or my] part has no effect upon reality [the facts]. If one does not correctly access the facts the results can be frightening. Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, "... facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher."

A staffer for Hillary Clinton's campaign, in a fit of conscience, posted this on October 30, 2008, speaking to the electorate, "Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job - to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media...", "Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I've come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn't have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans."

When John McCain was challenged earlier this year he provided proof of his citizenship via his long form birth certificate. Everyone including the Democratic National Party, The Federal Elections Commission, the State of Illinois, the Senate and others will be embarrassed [or worse] if Barack is not telling the truth. The truth will eventually come out, but this raises these questions...



If Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, then what is he hiding?
Why stonewall?
If he is a citizen, then why not give up the documents being requested?
When do we want to find out the truth?
Would Americans rather play ostrich?
Do Americans want to know before Election Day?
Is having no firm grip on reality better than knowing the truth?
Are Americans going to allow someone to hijack our constitution?
Are we going to stick our head in the sand because it will keep the peace?
If he is not a citizen, is he not a usurper?
If it is a fraud, then who is behind it?
If it is a fraud, does $670 million in campaign contributions constitute theft?
Are others involved complicit of a fraud on the American people?
Why won't the Federal Elections Commission get to the bottom of this?
Why won't the Democratic National Committee get to the bottom of this?
Why has the FEC and DNC supported Obama andactually defended him?
Barack Obama has a master's degree in constitutional law. What gives?
Will this ever go away in the minds of the voters, until it is proven either way?
Are there other reasons he might have, to not show the documents?
Do Democrats or Republicans care if Barack is running illegally?
If he really cares about America, why doesn't he just release the documents?
Did I miss something... is this the United States of North Korea, China, or Cuba?
If we can go after Joe the plumber from Ohio within a few hours after he asks Barack an embarrassing question, digging up his divorce records, child support records, voting status, tax records, etc., then we can surely get to the bottom of this... can't we?
Real Americans cannot throw our constitutional heritage out the window without proof that Barack Obama is not seizing power without the right to do so. "We The People" do not deserve to be taken to the brink of a constitutional crisis over something as simple as this. If I fish, hunt, drive, fly, get a passport, etc. I'm required to provide proof that I am eligible.

This is absurd that Barack Obama is holding the American people in such low esteem that he will not produce documents that can be verified. If there is usurpation, this is likely to cause feelings of suspicion and doubt among Americans on both ends of the political spectrum for years to come. In the end, it justifiably causes us to ask ourselves... Can we trust the system to work? Anyone who defends him on such a petty matter as providing proof of citizenship is in a stupor. For the sake of all Americans, we need Obama to provide the information to the RNC, DNC and FEC so it can be verified by independent and reputable third parties.

There have been a total of eight (8) lawsuits filed in the U.S. to force Barack Obama to turn over the requested documents or to ask the secretary of individual states to keep him off of the ballot.

The most significant was filed on 9/21/08 by Phillip J. Berg in federal court, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Barack Obama may not be a citizen and asks for production of documents that will verify this. On 9/24/08 Barack Obama, joined by the Democratic National Committee filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit because the Plaintiff, Berg, has no standing to challenge whether a candidate has the qualifications to be President of the United States.

Berg argued that it is the role of the Federal Election Commission to ensure that presidential and congressional candidates are eligible to hold the position for which they are seeking, and that those candidates run a fair and legitimate campaign. In vetting the presidential candidate, Berg argued that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) are required to ensure the eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and that the Presidential nominee, if elected, is qualified and eligible to serve pursuant to our United States Constitution.

U.S. District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick, on 9/29/08 denied the first motion to dismiss in favor of the plaintiff, "Having reviewed the motion and plaintiff's opposition to said motion and for good cause shown, it is hereby ordered that the motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is denied." It also ordered that the discovery be turned over to plaintiff within three (3) days. 1) Obama's "vault" version which is a certified copy of his original long version birth certificate; 2) a certified copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship; 3) a certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance.

To date, Barack Obama has not produced any documents in spite of the Federal Court Order to comply.

There were several motions filed, as is customary in cases like these, but in the end on Friday 10/24/08 the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the case on the grounds that Berg, the former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing [could not prove harm]. The basic argument of Judge R. Barclay Surrick concluded that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate meets the constitutional requirements of the office. He said that it is up to congress to decide who can and cannot bring an action to police eligibility. Judge Barclay Surrick's 27 page dismissal argued that the plaintiff would, "derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting". It further argued that it would deny voters a right to vote for Obama.

Berg filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on 10/30/08, asking that the Supreme Court stay the election while they review the case in order to forestall a constitutional crisis. Berg's appeal argues that if a citizen, or each of 300 million citizens, does not have standing... then who does?

The argument used by Judge Surrick, it seems to me, was absurd in that he argued it would deny voters a right to vote for Obama. A common sense perspective would argue that if he is not qualified under the constitution, then no one has the right to vote for him. Isn't it the responsibility of Government [Executive, Legislative and Judicial] to enforce the Constitution of the United States? It also seems to me that if we elect an unqualified candidate then every American is injured, in that an unqualified candidate is without power, without jurisdiction, without authority, without ethical foundation. Everything he does while in office is null and void because he had no right to be there in the first place. If he is unqualified his acts are without authority. Therefore, everything he does will be subject to challenge. Do we want to find out the truth now or later?

A character we all know too well, named Razzmatazz, has put our ethical and philosophical compass into a spin. If every American, who is not under anesthesia, does not demand proof... I will be appalled! In the final analyses few would deny that it was Razzmatazz who killed Mother Wit. Keeping one's keel in the water has never been harder. The politicians, the news media and the legal profession have all seen their esteem in our society diminish. The public holds them in low regard. The question this presents is what caused it? Here is quote by Donald M. Fraser that provides a hint, "Under current law, it is a crime for a private citizen to lie to a government official, but not for the government official to lie to the people."

A witticism by Will Rogers is another tip-off, "Of course people are getting smarter nowadays; they are letting lawyers instead of their conscience be their guides." In Hamlet by Shakespeare, the palace guard sensing something is not right says, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Lucidity of the mind is arguably the most important faculty humans can possess as their objectivity is at stake. In our time, the "easy grifters" have so swayed common sense that society is ethically adrift and unbalanced.

The situation Americans find themselves in stems from our individual blind faith, suggestive of apathy, a faith that branches not from pure democratic principles but from a lack of it. Blind faith is an idyllic concept, the epitome of laziness, of classical Roman indolence, of prostituted disinterest and of citizen immaturity. It is arrogance borne of abundance, selfishness, ignorance and complacency. When bondage might happen to us, not whether, is the question? My hope is that this information empowers "The People" with the confidence to raise your voice.

Don Snyder,