Congress, courts and media know Obama is ineligible.
That's why they
deny it so vigorously.
Items are archived in order of discovery . . .
The Biggest Political Cover-Up In
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.
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
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?
|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."
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
. . .
Related: The strange case of Judge David
Copyright Beckwith 2009
All right reserved