Critics File Suit Claiming He’s Constitutionally Ineligible to Be President

by Adeeba Folami

As President-elect Barack Obama, his family, staff and supporters prepare for his January move into the White House, a growing number of critics are voicing support for a campaign which is underway and, if successful, will prevent him from taking office. Should that happen, it would also dash the risen hopes of millions of people around the world who were energized by Obama’s candidacy and believe him able to bring about “change you can believe in.”

For months now, “conservative” bloggers and commentators, along with some Democratic supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton, have attempted to focus attention on Obama’s birth, particularly the Hawaiian birth certificate posted on his fightthesmears.com website; an image meant to disprove all allegations about his birth not taking place in the United States.

The certificate, however, has a number which has been redacted, and contains no signatures or identification of the birth doctor – things which lead Obama’s critics into more questioning since one of three constitutional requirements for the presidency is that a candidate must be a “natural born citizen. The other two requirements are that an individual must be at least 35 years-old and have been a U.S. resident for 14 years. Obama meets the latter two qualifications but it is the “natural born citizen” clause which critics say disqualify him. The constitution does not further define the phrase and therefore, some feel a constitutional crisis is ahead if Obama is allowed to assume the office of president.

The Supreme Court, in response to a suit filed by Attorney Philip Berg (pictured), has given President-elect Barack Obama until Dec. 1 to respond to claims that he is not a natural born citizen of the U.S. and is, therefore, ineligible to become president.

“Does the constitution matter?” asks a full page ad which ran in the Nov. 17 Washington Times National Weekly edition; a newspaper popular with politicians in Washington, D.C. and readers nationwide. Philip Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney and former attorney general, placed the ad and months ago was one of the first to take legal action to demand Obama present proof that he is a U.S. citizen. The Clinton supporter’s activities and efforts are being tracked on his website, obamacrimes.com, where a recent news release states that his recent filing to the U.S. Supreme Court is in process and a deadline date of Dec. 1 has been given to Obama and his team to respond to the Court.

In his ad, Berg presents four exhibits on which he bases his case: (1) claims that Obama’s paternal Kenyan grandmother is on record as saying she was present when the president-elect was born in that African country; (2) an original birth certificate has never been produced for review and “experts” have called the online image a “forgery”; (3) Obama may still hold Indonesian citizenship since, as a child, he attended school in that country where laws would not allow non-citizen children to attend and also forbade dual citizenship; (4) Obama’s mother was too young to meet the residency requirements of U.S. law which would have enabled her to declare her son a “natural born citizen.”

Former Republican Alan Keyes

In another case, Dr. Alan Keyes – who was the American Independent Party’s (AIP) candidate for president – has also filed a suit in California along with Dr. Wiley Drake, his vice presidential pick, and Markham Robinson, an AIP representative. They filed against the California Secretary of State (SOS), that state’s long list of electoral college members, and Obama.

Electoral college members are important because it is they, despite the popular vote cast on Nov. 4, who decide and certify who will be the next president of the country. Their decision is set to be made on Dec. 15 and will be certified by each state’s SOS office. The lawsuit outlines that candidates for president have, in the past, only submitted written notice that they were citizens but “this practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded when requesting a drivers license.” Keyes and company then go on to request a court order barring the SOS from certifying California’s electoral vote until such time as Obama has produced proof that he is a natural-born citizen and not one of Kenya, Indonesia or England.

“In case Senator Obama cannot present proper documentation, he cannot be elected President and SOS has a duty to bar the casting of votes by California electors in support of his candidacy,” the document continues, adding that more than a dozen other legal actions have been filed across the country. “Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President, and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper [sic] will be sitting as President, and none of the treaties, laws or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

Since the issue would be easily laid to rest with the showing of Obama’s original birth certificate, some are asking why the former Illinois senator hasnot produced it and take his refusal to mean he “has something to hide.” Meanwhile, as with the many other controversies that came Obama’s way during his campaign – and which he successfully overcame - he appears to be handling this one in the same manner. It remains to be seen what Dec. 1 will bring when his response is due to the Supreme Court but his Fight the Smears website still proclaims the same message that it has for months. “Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper – they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen,” the site reads. “Truth is, [he] was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native of the United States.”

Interestingly, Obama’s rival, Senator John McCain, also faced similar charges and lawsuits about his birth which occurred in the Panama Canal Zone where his father was on assignment for the U.S. Military in 1936. The matter is of no consequence now other than to highlight that the Constitution may be in need of Congressional clarification and reform when it comes to the presidential “natural born citizen” qualification and who can, or cannot, become president of the country.

© 2008 - All Rights Reserved - The Black House News
Unlimited online distribution allowed with acknowledgement of bhonline.org as the source

>>>>>>>>

Tags: alan keyes, barack obama birth, constitutional crisis, election fraud, electoral college, fight the smears, john mccain birth, natural born citizen, obama birth certificate, obama crimes, obama not a citizen, philip berg, presidential lawsuit

UK Tabloid Spreading Rumors of an Obama Assasination Attempt (Larouche PAC)

….This kind of behavior by the British media does not surprise me in the least,” Lyndon LaRouche commented today. “The British are gloating, in public, about their plans to assassinate the U.S. President-elect. This must be stopped, at all costs…

From Columbus to Obama: Trail of Emancipation (Nigerian Vanguard)

Will You Speak Up or “Give Obama A Chance”? (Op-ed News)

Planning Underway for Obama Holiday (Topeka Capital Journal)

Incarceration Nation: The Rise of A Prison Industrial Complex (Dissident Voice)

…The United States has less than 4 percent of the world’s population but almost 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. Amazingly, the US has a higher incarceration rate than China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe and Burma. Out of 1,000 people, more Americans are behind bars than anywhere in the world except in Kim Jong-Il’s Neo-Stalinist North Korea, which is basically one giant Gulag….

Colorado Voters Reject Affirmative Action Ban (AP)

…Colorado voters became the first in the nation to reject a ban on state affirmative action programs, narrowly defeating a measure that California businessman Ward Connerly has helped pass in four other states….

U.S. Military Doctrine Calls for Another 9/11-style Attack (Global Research)

>>>>>>>>

Tags: african american news headlines, black news headlines

Barack Obama portrait (unknown date, 2000s)

JFK (Official White House presidential portrait, 1960s)

Tags: making obama JFK, obama JFK comparison, obama posing like JFK

Stanley Crouch

The following letter was submitted via email to author, commentator, jazz musician, and critic Stanley Crouch in response to a recent column he wrote entitled “Obama vs Farrakhan.”  His opinion piece was published on The Daily Beast website where it was subtitled, “How Obama Made Farrakhan Irrelevant.” 

_________

Greetings Mr. Crouch:

After reading your commentary entitled “Obama vs Farrakhan,” published on The Daily Beast website, I was moved to respond as one who has great love and respect for Minister Louis Farrakhan, a man who has greatly impacted my thinking and life and that of many others over the years. Your disrespectful and derogatory comments deserve to be addressed. I do not know if you chose the title of your article but The Daily Beast also used the subtitle, or keywords, “How Obama Made Farrakhan Irrelevant.”

If he has been made “irrelevant,” it should be easy – now that President-elect Barack Obama is on the scene - for the Minister’s critics to move on and not have to resort to trashing his name regularly in their columns, and on TV/radio shows. In your case, it appears that you only leech off of the Ministers’ name because not doing so might make many people skip right over your columns. Example: Farrakhan – the name – only appeared five times in your 11-paragraph piece and the five mentions were compacted into the opening five paragraphs (one in the first; three in the second, and one in the fifth).

I could be offbase, but it would seem that if you were really interested in proving your point (as stated in your title), you would have presented a stronger and more convincing case. That would have required many more mentions of Min. Farrakhan’s name throughout the entirety of your article, not just in the opening.

Having now just re-read “Obama vs Farrakhan,” it seems that a more appropriate title would have referenced your opinion that Obama has overcome the many self-defeating, negative behaviors of some Black people that have often captured headlines in America. That would have been a more honest approach, I believe, since the latter part of your article brings up OJ, Michael Vick, Lil Kim, Foxy Brown – your negatives; versus Tiger Woods, Gwen Ifill, and Obama – your positives. Your conclusion reads, “We seem to have reached a fresh plateau on which no one from any group needs to hide under the bed when a despicable individual from the collective identity—or assumed identity—acts up deplorably.”

I hope you and others can see how the selection of a title using the name “Farrakhan” was only a strategic ploy designed to pull people to your piece which is only one of thousands of articles, op-eds and commentaries which make up the high and deep pile of (symbolic) dung tossed about in today’s media. It could be that, were it not for you leeching off of the name  Farrakhan, only your fans would have invested their precious time reading.   Looking at the few references you did make to Min. Farrakhan, I have to say that some of them lead me to ask you, “What is your problem?”

Reference 1 – Was made after your introduction and mention of your upcoming book about Obama and, since your book was the first thing you mentioned, that indicates where your priorities and motives are (book sales and profit for yourself). But moving on, your first mention of the Minister reads:

“The book begins with the great distraction that Obama has prevailed through and which, if the country was still as it used to be, would have made his run impossible. The event was the nadir of black nationalism put on nationwide display at the 1995 Million Man March in Washington, D.C. Many black men were gathered at the behest of Louis Farrakhan, the clown prince of despotism.”

Where does one even begin? How about with the definition of nadir: the lowest point; the time of deepest depression. I had to read and re-read your comment to make sure I was understanding correctly that “nadir of black nationalism” was your description of the Million Man March (MMM), which you also called a “great distraction.” Then you go on to refer to the Minister as “the clown prince of despotism,” and, speaking of clowns, have you looked in the (spiritual and emotional) mirror lately? Seriously. The MMM that you deem to be the lowest point of the Black struggle was a historic event and is said to have been attended by Barack Obama, who, like the 1.5 to 2 million other Black men there, saw it as a significant event. Evidently you weren’t there and even though a Black man yourself, you saw/see no value in recognizing and honoring the theme which was to call Black men, in particular, to atonement and more responsible decision making in their lives and communities. So maybe you’re leeching again today in your efforts to point out the “noxious behaviors of certain Black athletes and entertainers.”

“Crouch vs Farrakhan”

Comparing you to Min. Farrakhan, however, may be an injustice to him. The Minister’s history, actions and words show that he loves himself and his Brothers and Sisters despite their detrimental behaviors. Your words and actions indicate that not only are you filled with self-hate but also a disdain and possible hatred of your own people. You may not use that type of lingo …. “your own people” … so let me say you seem to have a degree of hatred for people who have the same skin tone (in various shades) that you have. Evidently, there’s a place in the scheme of things for voices, opinions and actions such as yours but, by the same token, there’s also a broad place for the Minister and the work he has been at for decades. That work should be respected but it seems you have the same view of him as his Caucasian critics who look at him as a “despot” and demagogue.

Reference 2 - “Farrakhan was and remains in a photo finish with David Duke and all other sanctimonious button-down primitives.”

Speaking of primitives …… Are you serious? And again, “what is your problem?” Your comparison is ridiculous and even moreso coming from a Black man who would have people believe he is balanced, rational and able to use logic to come to sound conclusions.

Reference 3 and 4 - “Thirty-two years after the March on Washington at which Martin Luther King expressed a timeless optimism about the human possibilities of our country, Farrakhan and his hundreds of thousands seemed proof that black America had completely torn its ass in public and set all thoughts of forward motion at a standstill. The civil rights establishment had finally submitted to—and been swallowed by—the dirty cartoon of demagoguery, which celebrated itself through Farrakhan with a loud belch.”

Speaking of tearing one’s ass ….. and given that Obama was reportedly at the MMM, a positive event that you clearly have a serious problem with, it could be that he never would have had the thought to run for high political office, were it not for the march. You, nor I, nor anyone else, at this time, knows how him participating in and/or viewing that historic mass gathering, affected him. He was, afterall, a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church then, a congregation very supportive of the Minister’s efforts. So your spite and disdain aside, it is a good possibility that Obama – even if not through direct contact or relationship – was impacted by Min. Farrakhan, the same man you have such a gigantic problem with.

I am really shaking my head at this point looking at the words with which you chose to characterize and describe the Minister. They continue to lead me to this question, “What is your problem?” It’s very clear that you have one with the man. Did he snub you at some point? Step on your toe and not say ‘Excuse me?’ Did he kill your firstborn or one of your other relatives? Or are you just that much of a “tool” that you write these things for Caucasian publishers and editors simply to get paid and have the adulation and adoration of those with paler skin than you?

Reference 5 - “Right now the country has been forced to face something else about human behavior at least partially because of men like Farrakhan, the high profile fradulence [sic] of the Tawana Brawley hoax, Jesse Jackson’s philandering and imprenating [sic] a mistress during the time that he prayed with Bill Clinton.”

Typos aside, I again shake my head and just now decided not to waste much more time addressing the (il)logic of this statement. Tawana Brawley “hoax”? How is the country “right now” being forced to face anything related to the Brawley case? What does Jackson’s affair have to do with anything the country is facing “right now?” And how do either of those things relate to your “Obama vs Farrakhan” theme? I’m sure they relate in your eyes and again, maybe your goal is to write anything outrageous as long as it might lead to increased book sales and resulting profit for your own self.

Is it all about book sales, to you? Anything you can do to milk the Obama presidency for all it’s worth, right? Hopefully, while you are leeching off of Obama’s name the next four years, and doing what you have to do for the almighty dollar, you will leave Min. Farrakhan’s name alone and find other ways to make your points without resorting to throwing “Farrakhan” into them as an attracting mechanism meant to make up for the fact that your own name and opinions draw little more than a few (symbolic) flies to that aforementioned pile of dung.

Thank you for reading.

Sincerely,

Adeeba Folami

The Black House

November 7, 2008

>>>>>>>

Tags: barack obama, daily beast, farrakhan irrelevant, million man march, min. louis farrakhan, obama vs farrakhan, stanley crouch