Keyes to appeal case on Obama's eligibility

Cole Firearms Inc. wrote:
Keyes to appeal case on Obama's eligibility
Lawyer says dismissal 'eviscerates' Constitution's rules for president

A lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for
president on California's general election ballot last year, challenging
President Obama's eligibility to hold office under the requirements of
the U.S. Constitution will be appealed, according to a lawyer working on
the case.

WND reported earlier on the case being filed and then again when a judge
dismissed it http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91613
after concluding anyone can run for president on the California ballot –
whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United
States.

Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible
for election laws in the state, has no "duty" to demand proof of
eligibility from candidates.

But now Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation
http://www.usjf.net has confirmed to WND the case will be appealed.

"The judge's ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of
each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the
nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in
our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional]
requirements for serving as president in the United States
Constitution," Kreep said.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills
the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still
want to see it, join some 350,000 others and sign up now!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550


"It has been publicly reported that Mr. Obama as far back as 2006
had a relationship to a law firm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#
that was coincidentally researching ways to get around the Article
2 requirements of the U.S. Constitution for service as president,"
he said.

"This appears to be an ongoing attempt by Mr. Obama to obtain the
presidency while avoiding and evading all questions on his eligibility,"
he said.

Kreep said the judge's ruling leaves open the option for any candidate,
resident or not, alive or not, to run for the office of president.

"California has a history of removing people from the ballot who are not
qualified to run for president," Kreep said. "The most famous case being
Eldridge Cleaver."

"It is incumbent upon us here at the USJF to continue this fight to
learn the truth," he said.

In the court's decision to dismiss the case,
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91613 the judge
rejected concerns over the problems that could result if a president was
found to be ineligible.

"If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of
the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the
laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he
signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be
subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of
America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is
important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for
president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office," the case
explained.

The case documents previously explained that in 1968 the Peace and
Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified
candidate for president. But then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan "found
that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years
old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a
candidate for president."

USJF explained that "using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed
Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this
decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to
the Supreme Court of the United States."

The USJF said similarly, in 1984, Peace and Freedom Party candidate
Larry Holmes was removed from the ballot.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a
"natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states,
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as
he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother,
the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer
American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father,
a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#at
the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend
the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying
as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in
Indonesian schools
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#
during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971# to
Pakistan three decades ago.


Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release
documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an
online version of a "Certification
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#
of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents
actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Keyes has been critical of judges' refusal to listen to evidence in the
disputes and suggestions that those who bring such allegations for
review should be penalized..

"In the final analysis if the courts refuse to respect the Constitution,
they are not the judges of their own action. The people must ultimately
decide. Which is why I and others will use every outlet to inform them
of the injustice being done not just to individuals but to the sovereign
people as a whole," Keyes said.

In a commentary on the dispute, http://loyaltoliberty.com Keyes wrote
that the suggestion of sanctions against those who bring up the
questions, already raised as an issue by Obama's lawyers
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971# in
his case, "confirms Obama's ruthless determination to destroy anyone who
continues to seek the information the Constitution requires.

"Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply
seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply
because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly
popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus
signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won't accept his
cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation,"
Keyes said.

"As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing
proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his
empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only
to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist
on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and
destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the
meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as
they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world's
esteem," Keyes said.



Judges choose to ignore evidence and allow Obama's eligibility to go
unchallenged.

Good thing that it will only be one term. Obama can't talk without a
teleprompter, can't figure out what to do, doesn't even know who to turn
to.

This country deserves to get a president who is a non-performer. They
had plenty of chance to discover that he doesn't have a resume. But
they let the press decide for them.

On Mar 27, 11:17*pm, Another Sunny Day wrote:
Cole Firearms Inc. wrote:
Keyes to appeal case on Obama's eligibility
Lawyer says dismissal 'eviscerates' Constitution's rules for president

A lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for
president on California's general election ballot last year, challenging
President Obama's eligibility to hold office under the requirements of
the U.S. Constitution will be appealed, according to a lawyer working on
the case.

WND reported earlier on the case being filed and then again when a judge
dismissed it http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91613
after concluding anyone can run for president on the California ballot –
whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United
States.

Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible
for election laws in the state, has no "duty" to demand proof of
eligibility from candidates.

But now Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation
http://www.usjf.net has confirmed to WND the case will be appealed.

"The judge's ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of
each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the
nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in
our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional]
requirements for serving as president in the United States
Constitution," Kreep said.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills
the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still
want to see it, join some 350,000 others and sign up now!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

* * *"It has been publicly reported that Mr. Obama as far back as 2006
* * *had a relationship to a law firm
* * *http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#
* * *that was coincidentally researching ways to get around the Article
* * *2 requirements of the U.S. Constitution for service as president,"
* * *he said.

"This appears to be an ongoing attempt by Mr. Obama to obtain the
presidency while avoiding and evading all questions on his eligibility,"
he said.

Kreep said the judge's ruling leaves open the option for any candidate,
resident or not, alive or not, to run for the office of president.

"California has a history of removing people from the ballot who are not
qualified to run for president," Kreep said. "The most famous case being
Eldridge Cleaver."

"It is incumbent upon us here at the USJF to continue this fight to
learn the truth," he said.

In the court's decision to dismiss the case,
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91613 the judge
rejected concerns over the problems that could result if a president was
found to be ineligible.

"If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of
the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the
laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he
signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be
subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of
America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is
important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for
president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office," the case
explained.

The case documents previously explained that in 1968 the Peace and
Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified
candidate for president. But then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan "found
that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years
old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a
candidate for president."

USJF explained that "using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed
Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this
decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to
the Supreme Court of the United States."

The USJF said similarly, in 1984, Peace and Freedom Party candidate
Larry Holmes was removed from the ballot.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a
"natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states,
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as
he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother,
the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer
American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father,
a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#at
the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend
the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying
as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in
Indonesian schools
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#
during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971# to
Pakistan three decades ago.

* * *Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release
* * *documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an
* * *online version of a "Certification
* * *http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#
* * *of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents
* * *actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Keyes has been critical of judges' refusal to listen to evidence in the
disputes and suggestions that those who bring such allegations for
review should be penalized..

"In the final analysis if the courts refuse to respect the Constitution,
they are not the judges of their own action. The people must ultimately
decide. Which is why I and others will use every outlet to inform them
of the injustice being done not just to individuals but to the sovereign
people as a whole," Keyes said.

In a commentary on the dispute, http://loyaltoliberty.com Keyes wrote
that the suggestion of sanctions against those who bring up the
questions, already raised as an issue by Obama's lawyers
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971# in
his case, "confirms Obama's ruthless determination to destroy anyone who
continues to seek the information the Constitution requires.

"Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply
seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply
because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly
popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus
signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won't accept his
cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation,"
Keyes said.

"As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing
proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his
empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only
to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist
on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and
destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the
meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as
they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world's
esteem," Keyes said.

Judges choose to ignore evidence and allow Obama's eligibility to go
unchallenged.

Good thing that it will only be one term. *Obama can't talk without a
teleprompter, can't figure out what to do, doesn't even know who to turn
to.

This country deserves to get a president who is a non-performer. *They
had plenty of chance to discover that he doesn't have a resume. *But
they let the press decide for them.

LOL...damn poor loser.

As for having a President who is a non-performer...we just had for the
last eight years named George "The Village Idiot" Bush.

TMT

On Mar 28, 2:49*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:17*pm, Another Sunny Day wrote:





Cole Firearms Inc. wrote:
Keyes to appeal case on Obama's eligibility
Lawyer says dismissal 'eviscerates' Constitution's rules for president

A lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for
president on California's general election ballot last year, challenging
President Obama's eligibility to hold office under the requirements of
the U.S. Constitution will be appealed, according to a lawyer working on
the case.

WND reported earlier on the case being filed and then again when a judge
dismissed it http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91613
after concluding anyone can run for president on the California ballot –
whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United
States.

Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible
for election laws in the state, has no "duty" to demand proof of
eligibility from candidates.

But now Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation
http://www.usjf.net has confirmed to WND the case will be appealed.

"The judge's ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of
each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the
nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in
our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional]
requirements for serving as president in the United States
Constitution," Kreep said.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills
the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still
want to see it, join some 350,000 others and sign up now!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

* * *"It has been publicly reported that Mr. Obama as far back as 2006
* * *had a relationship to a law firm
* * *http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#
* * *that was coincidentally researching ways to get around the Article
* * *2 requirements of the U.S. Constitution for service as president,"
* * *he said.

"This appears to be an ongoing attempt by Mr. Obama to obtain the
presidency while avoiding and evading all questions on his eligibility,"
he said.

Kreep said the judge's ruling leaves open the option for any candidate,
resident or not, alive or not, to run for the office of president.

"California has a history of removing people from the ballot who are not
qualified to run for president," Kreep said. "The most famous case being
Eldridge Cleaver."

"It is incumbent upon us here at the USJF to continue this fight to
learn the truth," he said.

In the court's decision to dismiss the case,
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91613 the judge
rejected concerns over the problems that could result if a president was
found to be ineligible.

"If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of
the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the
laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he
signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be
subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of
America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is
important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for
president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office," the case
explained.

The case documents previously explained that in 1968 the Peace and
Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified
candidate for president. But then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan "found
that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years
old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a
candidate for president."

USJF explained that "using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed
Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this
decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to
the Supreme Court of the United States."

The USJF said similarly, in 1984, Peace and Freedom Party candidate
Larry Holmes was removed from the ballot.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a
"natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states,
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as
he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother,
the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer
American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father,
a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#at
the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend
the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying
as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in
Indonesian schools
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#
during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971# to
Pakistan three decades ago.

* * *Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release
* * *documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an
* * *online version of a "Certification
* * *http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971#
* * *of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents
* * *actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Keyes has been critical of judges' refusal to listen to evidence in the
disputes and suggestions that those who bring such allegations for
review should be penalized..

"In the final analysis if the courts refuse to respect the Constitution,
they are not the judges of their own action. The people must ultimately
decide. Which is why I and others will use every outlet to inform them
of the injustice being done not just to individuals but to the sovereign
people as a whole," Keyes said.

In a commentary on the dispute, http://loyaltoliberty.com Keyes wrote
that the suggestion of sanctions against those who bring up the
questions, already raised as an issue by Obama's lawyers
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92971# in
his case, "confirms Obama's ruthless determination to destroy anyone who
continues to seek the information the Constitution requires.

"Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply
seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply
because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly
popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus
signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won't accept his
cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation,"
Keyes said.

"As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing
proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his
empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only
to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist
on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and
destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the
meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as
they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world's
esteem," Keyes said.

Judges choose to ignore evidence and allow Obama's eligibility to go
unchallenged.

Good thing that it will only be one term. *Obama can't talk without a
teleprompter, can't figure out what to do, doesn't even know who to turn
to.

This country deserves to get a president who is a non-performer. *They
had plenty of chance to discover that he doesn't have a resume. *But
they let the press decide for them.

LOL...damn poor loser.

As for having a President who is a non-performer...we just had for the
last eight years named George "The Village Idiot" Bush.

TMT-

Jimmah Carter was a major non-performer.

In talk.politics.guns Too_Many_Tools wrote:

As for having a President who is a non-performer...we just had for the
last eight years named George "The Village Idiot" Bush.

Yet that "village idiot" defeated two of the best the leftists could
run against him.

[chuckle]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
In talk.politics.guns Too_Many_Tools wrote:

As for having a President who is a non-performer...we just had for the
last eight years named George "The Village Idiot" Bush.

Yet that "village idiot" defeated two of the best the leftists could
run against him.

[chuckle]

Yes, millions of other idiots voted for the fool, he destroyed the global
economy, and yet more idiots think it's oh so funny.

- JR

In talk.politics.guns Freewhilin Franklin
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:16:21 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns Too_Many_Tools wrote:

As for having a President who is a non-performer...we just had for the
last eight years named George "The Village Idiot" Bush.

Yet that "village idiot" defeated two of the best the leftists could
run against him.

[chuckle]


Not quite true except in GOP World®. Al Gore had more popular votes total than
the Village Idiot, but not in the right states.

Popular votes don't elect a president, twit. Read the Constitution
or-- in your case-- have someone read it to you.

Bush defeated your best. Twice.

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

"Freewhilin Franklin"
wildly crossposting to 5 newsgroups, at least 4 of whom couldn't give a
rats ass, stated:
snipped

can't you loons even post without quoting 400 lines of accumulated
stupidity? What the ****? I mean, Usenet has been around a long time, you
could try and figure out the standard protocols by now. Stop crossposting
to other groups, or the big kids are going to straighten things
out........

Why don't you just go back downstairs and tie some of those pretty fake bugs
your doctor told you would help you recover from your "problem"? Straighten
things out my ass - FOAD net nanny.

In , "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

"Freewhilin Franklin"
wildly crossposting to 5 newsgroups, at least 4 of whom couldn't give a rats
ass, stated:
snipped

can't you loons even post without quoting 400 lines of accumulated
stupidity? What the ****? I mean, Usenet has been around a long time, you
could try and figure out the standard protocols by now. Stop crossposting to
other groups, or the big kids are going to straighten things out........

If you are an example of the "big kids" then we have nothing to fear.

And usenet "protocols" have nothing to do with posting ettiquette. Perhaps
you should learn the terminology before extending your pencil neck any
further.

"Freewhilin Franklin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:16:21 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns Too_Many_Tools wrote:

As for having a President who is a non-performer...we just had for the
last eight years named George "The Village Idiot" Bush.

Yet that "village idiot" defeated two of the best the leftists could
run against him.

[chuckle]


Not quite true except in GOP World®. Al Gore had more popular votes total
than
the Village Idiot, but not in the right states.


Too bad, fool
It's not a "popularity" contest
You need to get the right votes in the right states.

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:35:23 -0700, Freewhilin Franklin
wrote:


Yet that "village idiot" defeated two of the best the leftists could
run against him.

[chuckle]


Not quite true except in GOP World®. Al Gore had more popular votes total than
the Village Idiot, but not in the right states.


So Bush DID defeat the "best two demonrats"?

Thanks for the admission.

Gunner

"Human nature is bad. Good is a human product*
A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced
before it is made straight; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone
before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected
they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual
and moral principles."
—Sun Tzu
*