A Question Of Eligibility Barack Obama

WHAT if the president of the United States is not constitutionally eligible to serve? Is it possible that a straightforward criterion was overlooked during a long, grueling, expensive campaign? Why are so many questions about something so simple still going unanswered? "A Question Of Eligibility" goes where no other documentary has dared to go in seeking the answers to those questions, including one that millions of Americans are asking: "Why won't Barack Obama release publicly the long-form birth certificate he claims to have from the state of Hawaii?"

---

---

Why I doubt Kenyan birth document

---

© 2009

I bet that got your attention.

For 24 hours, I have been deluged with e-mail – about 6,000 more than usual – that essentially fall into three categories:

• Thank you for getting the goods on Barack Obama – I knew he was born in Kenya.
  
  
• You really stepped in it this time, Farah. That document is bogus and it's going to take the whole "birther" movement down once it is revealed as such.
  
  
• Don't you investigate the facts before you publish something? That document cannot be real because of X, Y and Z.

Because so many Americans have been educated in government schools, it is probably necessary for me to explain that reporting a news story is different than making an assertion.

No one at WND – not me, not Jerome Corsi, not any columnists, not any reporters – have defended the authenticity of the Kenyan birth certificate. No one here has made a judgment that it is real. What we did was report a fact – that California attorney Orly Taitz has filed a motion in federal court to determine its authenticity.

Heck, Barack Obama's purported "certification of live birth" has been on the Internet for nearly a year and there are still people fighting over whether it is real or not. (And, by the way, the people who claim it is won't get any help from the state of Hawaii, which has steadfastly refused to confirm it is official Hawaiian issuance.)

The first I saw of this document was Sunday when Orly Taitz put it on her website. Naturally, we reported this new twist in a story we have covered from the beginning.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join over 400,000 others and sign up now!

But, somehow, people assumed we were asserting that this was a genuine Kenyan birth document belonging to Barack Obama. That was never the case. In fact, if I had to bet on its authenticity, I would wager it is not. That doesn't mean it wasn't worth reporting. As I said, even the certification of live birth issued by Obama has never been proven to be real.

The Kenyan document could be real. I haven't seen a single disqualifying error pointed out in the last 24 hours. But I still strongly suspect it is not.

It did occur to me that the fastest and most efficient way to determine authenticity was to show it publicly – and let the scrutiny begin.

That is, of course, the exact opposite approach Barack Obama has taken to his birth certificate and virtually every other meaningful document in his life. He has hidden them from the public. Even though he has a constitutional obligation to prove he is a "natural born citizen," he arrogantly refuses to release something as harmless as his birth certificate.

Instead, he releases a document, not verified by the state of Hawaii, that could never prove he was actually born in Hawaii, because of the great potential for fraud it engendered. Anyone could march into a Hawaii public health department office and say he or she had a baby, fill out a form with the pertinent details, sign it and there would be no questions asked. That unverified procedure, by one "parent," would result in the generation of a certification of live birth – and, by the way, newspaper announcements in the local papers.

That certification of live birth, because of the inherent flaws in it, would be of little use to you in securing a U.S. passport. Why? Because the State Department understands they often misrepresent reality.

That's why we need to see Obama's birth certificate – his real one, the one with the doctor's signature, the name of the hospital, etc. There is no substitute for beginning the determination as to "natural born citizenship." Hearsay doesn't cut it. Autobiographies don't cut it. Unverified documents produced with no independent eyewitnesses don't cut it.

For the life of me, I don't know why every single American can't agree on that. I don't know why every single American can't agree to pressure Obama to release that one crucial document. I don't know why even Obama can't agree on that – unless he's hiding something.

And I strongly suspect he is.

I don't know what he's hiding.

I don't know if it's a foreign birth.

I don't know if it has anything to do with Kenya.

I don't know if it's something about his parentage.

I don't know if it relates to establishing his constitutional eligibility.

But, whatever it is, he has a sworn duty to come clean.

Clearly, the questions are never going to stop unless he does.

Obama eligibility

Hearing set on default in Obama eligibility case Judge asks for 2nd confirmation that president notified of case.

---

June 26,2009

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Dr. Orly Taitz

A judge in California has scheduled a July 13 hearing in a case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president in which the plaintiffs' attorney, Orly Taitz, says the commander-in-chief is in default.

Taitz told WND if her motion is granted she will immediately request access to Obama's birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

The announcement came from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who said: "Before the court is a motion by plaintiffs for reconsideration of order to show cause or in the alternative to certify question for appeal. Court sets this matter for hearing on July 13, 2009 at 8:30a.m. in Courtroom 9D. Plaintiffs are directed to make every effort possible to ensure that all remaining defendants are aware of the hearing and provide documentation that the individual receiving service is authorized to accept on defendants' behalf."

Taitz told WND she previously had served notice of the action but would pursue a further notification and confirmation.

"I have a very clear case," Taitz said. "I think they dropped the ball. They didn't figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.

The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in that state's court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.

"I will be asking for the release of his vital records," she said.

"The latest argument by the judge says that I was supposed to serve Obama by a certain Rule-4I. My argument is that it wasn't applicable, as I served him as an individual, on inauguration day, for his action before he became the president. He does not qualify to get governmental representation, meaning he has to pick (up) the tab," she explained.

"He defaulted, and in default I can demand production of the documents to show his fitness for the position," she wrote.

"The documents that I am requesting are the original (birth certificate), school records, passport records and immigration records."

The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant "Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro."

The service was verified, Taitz wrote in her latest motion to the court, by an affidavit that already is on file with the court.

"Plaintiffs have satisfied both the requirements of Rule 4(e)(2)(d) (and) 4(i)(3)," she wrote.

Taitz explained the dispute as being over the way she served notice of the lawsuit. There are different requirements for someone acting as a government official or someone who acted as a government official, but has left office.

Neither of those apply, she said. She sued Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.

She said her process server went to the White House to serve the president, and the Secret Service refused her admittance and refused to take the documents. She retreated to her car and called the White House office of legal counsel on her cell phone, and was instructed the proper service would be to deliver the documents to the Justice Department, which she did.

"Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court's order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion," she argued.

"In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal."

She suggested the case already is in default on the part of the president, and it should so be concluded.

"Why have a rule of default, at all, why make a distinction between private and U.S. governmental parties as between 4(e) and 4(i) at all within the federal rules, if the face of a complaint, and the status of the parties at the time of filing, cannot be used to judge compliance with such a rule which might apply in this case to guarantee victory to the plaintiff?

"It seems to the plaintiffs unfair and unjust that a judge could merely set aside a party’s default on a whim, for no good legal or equitable reason, based on a change in a party's status, but not the cause of action against him, between filing and service of a suit?" she continued.

"Plaintiffs Keyes et al. request this court to amend its order to show cause, especially but not limited to the Friday, June 12, 2009, order extending show cause, and denying as moot plaintiffs' motions for clarification, to permit plaintiffs to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 1292(b)."

As WND reported in a profile on Taitz, she was born in the Republic of Moldova which used to be part of the Soviet Union.

Recalling her life under a communist regime, she told WND she is determined to do her part to stop America from following in the all-too-familiar footsteps of her former homeland.

She confirms she is not willing to let the issue rest on a single case and has filed multiple complaints in an effort to reach her goal. She previously took her complaint directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, and when the justices met privately with the defendant – Obama – but didn't explain their rejection of her dispute, she approached two different justices in public settings, asking them to consider the case.

She has likened not only the U.S. judiciary to the old Soviet Union establishment because of its unwillingness to resolve the dispute, but she's accused members of the media of becoming like the Soviet press, because they push for Obama's agenda.