The Three Enablers

Custom Search

  

  

The Congress, courts and media know Obama is ineligible.

 

That's why they deny it so vigorously.
 

   

 


help fight the media
  
 

 

 

 

 
Items are archived in order of discovery . . .

The Biggest Political Cover-Up In American History

The three enablers of Obama's usurpation of the Office of the President of the United States in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.  The Congress will not look at or investigate the merits of the charges.  The Courts will not hear in a trial the merits of the charges.  And the Main Stream Media will not talk about the merits of the charges and discuss the Constitutional issues involved with the American people.  Their ignoring the questions and concerns of the People in this matter endangers our liberty by demonstrating that those in power, once in power feel they do not have to listen to the People.

Obama, the putative U. S. President, was born a Kenyan citizen and British subject governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 -- a fact he admits to at the bottom of this page.  Obama is still a British Protected Person and/or a British subject to this day.

How can a person who was born a British subject be considered a "natural born" citizen of the USA?

Simple answer -- he can't.  At the top of this page, in the big blue box, Obama's own campaign identifies him as a "native [born]" citizen.  They know.  It's been there all the time.

This situation was created when both major political parties ran ineligible candidates, who were not "natural born" citizens.  Obama was ineligible because his father was a foreigner (Jus sanguinis), and McCain was ineligible because he was born in a foreign country (Jus soli).  The U. S Constitution, applicable case law and historical and legal precedent have been ignored for political expediency.

We are now witnessing the biggest political cover-up in American history.
Judges Told To Resolve Eligibility Dispute
Bob Unruh says a district court's ruling in a dispute over Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, if allowed to stand, would strip minorities in the United States of "all political power" and leave laws to be based "upon the whims of the majority," according to a new filing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The brief was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, who is representing Wiley S. Drake, a vice presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California, and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state.

The case involves a long list of additional plaintiffs, including ambassador Alan Keyes, who are being represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, and are filing their pleadings separately from those on behalf of Drake and Robinson.

The case challenges Obama's eligibility to be president, citing a lack of documentation, and was the subject of hearings at the lower court level, where Judge David Carter heard arguments.  However, Carter dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs suffered no injury -- they didn't have "standing" -- and that the law left it to Congress to sort out eligibility issues instead of a court.

Wrong on both counts, argues the brief submitted just days ago to the appeals judges.

The brief contends that according to a 2008 court precedent, "a candidate or his political party has standing to challenge the inclusion of an allegedly ineligible rival on the ballot, on the theory that doing so hurts the candidate's or party's own chances of prevailing."

"This interest is akin to the interest of an Olympic competition, where one of the competitors in an athletic competition is found to be using performance enhancing drugs, but is not removed despite a violation of the rules, and all of the athletes who had trained for the event legitimately are harmed if that disqualified contestant remains as the contestants would not be competing on a level playing fields," the brief argues.  "Obama entered this race without having meet the eligibility requirements for the office of president of the United States and, as a result, Drake has been injured because he did not have fair competition for the office of vice president."

Further, the brief argues that the government's argument that Keyes and Drake were in no position to win the election anyway, "does not nullify their injury."  "The injury here is that these candidates were denied a fair opportunity to run for the office because their competition was disqualified from the outset," the argument explains.

Furthermore, the case should be handled by the court system, the brief insists.

Continue reading here . . .

Related:  The strange case of Judge David O. Carter.
 

 Copyright  Beckwith  2009

All right reserved