by Raymond Kraft:
PART ONE
OBAMA: THE ILLEGAL ALIEN

I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized. If he is elected, he will be the UnConstitutional President from the moment he takes the oath of office, the first president who is not a citizen of the United States.

Why I am so sure?

I was not convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama’s birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama’s origins. I was convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, asking the governor of Hawaii to seal Obama’s birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone, and by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, sealing his records at Columbia University and Harvard Law. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America. And he wants to be POTUS, and Commander-in-Chief.

In the litigation business, one quickly learns that if somebody has a document that will be good for them, they can’t wait to give it to you. And if somebody has a document that will hurt them, they’ll be tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago to keep you from getting it.

Obama is tap dancing.

If I were Obama’s lawyers, and if there was a good, authentic, birth certificate that proved Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii, I would tell him to instruct the Hawaiian Department of Health to provide a certified copy to every journalist who asked about it, to the Courts and plaintiffs in all the lawsuits, and to make the original available for inspection by any expert forensic document examiner any litigant or news agency engaged to examine the birth certificate for authenticity. I would tell him to come clean, and end the speculation. And I would tell him that the speculation could cost him the election.

But that’s not what Obama’s lawyers are doing, they’re filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on “technicalities,” at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.

But what Obama and his lawyers and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) are not doing is being open and honest with America. They’re tap dancing faster than Richard Gere in Chicago. So we are forced to this conclusion as a matter of logical necessity:

1. If Barack Obama could produce a good birth certificate that would verify his status as a “natural born citizen,” he would. Failing to do so can only hurt him. Failing to do so can cost him the election.

2. He hasn’t, and is doing all possible not to.

3. Therefore, we can only conclude that he can’t, and that his birth certificate, if it exists at all, is either altered, forged, or shows him born outside the U.S. We have to conclude that producing his birth certificate, if he can, will prove he is not eligible to be president, not a natural born citizen, or not a citizen at all. We can only conclude that Obama and his laywers know that producing his birth records will hurt him even more than not producing them.

Now, I could be wrong. Barack Obama can prove me wrong by producing a good birth certificate. But he hasn’t. Will he? Can he?

PART TWO
NO “STANDING” TO SUE?

In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama’s lawyers and ruled that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no “standing” to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because, arguendo, only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot.

This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life – and from a Federal Judge, at that. And if I didn’t make myself perfectly clear, let me know and I’ll try again.

Let’s do the analysis.

1. The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.

2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.

3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. It’s just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.

4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment “to petition the government for redress of grievances.” If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.

I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.

PART THREE
THE DUTY OF CONGRESS

Article II, Section 1, requires that upon taking office the President of the United States shall take the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States.”

Article VI, Clause 3, requires that Senators and Representatives requires:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution . . .”

Members of Congress take this oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Having taken this oath, Sen. Barack Obama has violated his oath of office if he is refusing to disclose a birth certificate that proves his candidacy for president is unconstitutional, and I believe this is a mandatory basis for his impeachment.

Having taken these oaths, the President, the Vice President (an executive officer of the United States), every member of the Senate and House, every member of every State legislature, and every executive and judicial officers of the United States and of each State, has a mandatory duty per Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution to “support and defend” the Constitution, and that would necessarily include taking whatever action is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of “natural born citizen” ever becomes President.

And every Federal Judge, and every Justice of the Supreme Court, having taken this oath, also have a mandatory duty to “protect and defend” the Constitution by doing whatever is necessary to assure that no person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement of “natural born citizen” ever becomes President. Indeed, I believe that the Supreme Court has a sua sponte duty to resolve this dispute by ordering, on its own initiative, the immediate production of all of Obama’s birth records in order to confirm his place of birth, and prevent the election of an UnConstitutional President. So far, all Justices of the Supreme Court have failed this mandatory duty.

So far, the President, the Vice President, every member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, ever Federal Judge and Justice, every member of every State legislature, and every governor, have failed in this duty. They have all failed to fulfill their oaths of office. Every one. They must all demand that Sen. Barack Obama either (a) produce a good birth certificate proving his status as a “natural born citizen,” or (b) withdraw his candidacy before November 4th.

All those who do not should be impeached for having failed their oath of office.

PART FOUR
THE GREATEST SWINDLE IN HISTORY

If Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot prove that he is a “natural born citizen,” then Obama, the Democrat National Committee, the Democrats in the Senate and House who support him, and others such as former president Bill Clinton who openly support him, have perpetrated the greatest swindle in history by falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting Obama as Constitutionally eligible to be president, concealing the truth about his place of birth, thereby inducing millions of Democrats by the fraud of concealment, by the lie of non-disclosure, by “trick and device,” to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Barack Obama presidential campaign to elect an UnConstitutional President.

My opinion.

Note, this is a fraud perpetrated by Sen. Barack Obama, the DNC, and hundreds of Democrats in Congress, on their own constituency, the Democrat voters of America. It is a fraud of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and perpetrated on the Democrats. And it has defrauded Democrats out of more than $600 million.

According to their oaths of office, every Democrat member of Congress has an affirmative duty to assure that their presidential candidate is constitutionally qualified. As soon as questions about Obama’s birth arose, every Democrat in Congress had a mandatory duty to confirm his eligibility by demanding release of his birth records. But, they have not. Not to my knowledge. Instead, every Democrat in Congress is complicit in the cover up – the cover up – of Obama’s birth certificate, by failing to demand full disclosure to confirm his place of birth.

In my opinion, unless Obama can produce a good birth certificate proving that he is a “natural born citizen,” then every Democrat member of Congress, every person managing Obama’s campaign, every officer and director of the Democrat National Commitee, and every person who has ever taken an oath to “support and defend” the Constitution and is now supporting an UnConstitutional candidate for president, has participated in a vast left-wing conspiracy to defraud millions of Democrats out of hundreds of millions of dollars to elect an UnConstitutional President.

In my opinion, every one of these people, hundreds of them, should be prosecuted for fraud under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for if Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” that is what the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has become. And every one of them should be tried, convicted, and sent to prison for decades, for this is a $600 billion swindle of America’s Democrats, a swindle perpetrated by the DNC and Barack Obama.

Now, I could be wrong. I could be wrong about every opinion I have expressed here.

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama can prove me wrong, quickly, simply, easily, by opening the doors of the hospitals and the Hawaiian Department of Health and showing us, showing America, showing the Democrats, all of his birth records.

Unless and until he does, I will remain convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is not an American citizen.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Raymond S. Kraft is an attorney and writer in Northern California. He can be contacted at rskraft@vfr.net.

5 Responses to “The Great Obama Swindle of 2008”

1. anonymous Says:
   October 31st, 2008 at 6:46 pm

   The problem is that Obama refuses to produce the “vault” certificate which is the document which the state uses to issue the certificate. The vault certificate shows the doctor, hospital etc. Obama has refused to release this. There must be a reason. From 1911 to l972, Hawaii permitted a person over the age of one to obtain a birth certificate by submitting an affidavit from the mother that the child was born at home. Thus Obama’ls mother could have obtained a birth certificate for Obama – thereby ensuring he was an american citizen. Obamas Kenyan grandmother says he was born in Kenya… Obama may be ineligable to be president if he was not born in the US. That what makes Obama refusal so puzzling — if he does’t produce the vault certificate – it leads to endless speculation that he has something to hide..

2. DaMan Conners Says:
   October 31st, 2008 at 6:57 pm

   It is getting scary out there. We have a media determined to hide the evidence ( the tape the LA Times has right now) , just to elect this man. I have a feeling McCain is getting this by a landslide.

   I want to get back at the media for doing what it is doing. What can I do other than just not watch them.

   If Obama wins, click my name here. Or Google this: Whispers and Shouts of Revolution in America – Can You Hear The Founders Cry?
   Even now google that. It is important and scary at the same time.

3. smoothstone Says:
   October 31st, 2008 at 7:12 pm

   I hear you, Anonymous and DaMan Conners. Thank you for your comments.

   Listen: Don’t let you hearts be troubled because what you both can do is 1) vote for McCain and 2) convince 5 and 10 more people to vote for McCain just like you. We only have 4 days left. This is a CODE Blue. Our country is about to die but if you can get 10, 15 people to Com-Pre-Hend why Obama is a radical Leftist, and how he is the WORST choice to throw the lever on Nov 4, and how he sat in that church of Jeremiah Wright for 7, 8 years at at time, then we’ll make it.

   I repeat: This is a CODE BLUE. This is a RED ALERT for our nation’s safety.

   Thank you gentlemen, for writing. You lift up my spirits.

   THINK POSITIVE. WE CAN STILL PULL THIS OFF. OK?

   WE CAN STILL PULL THIS OFF. IT AIN’T OVER UNTIL IT’S OVER, OK?

4. sus Says:
   November 1st, 2008 at 3:11 am

   This article is posted over at Hannity’s site:

   http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1077231

   Over the last few months there has been a small, but growing, group of people dearly hoping to eliminate Barrak Obama as a presidential candidate due to questions concerning is citizenship status. In my opinion this is a non-issue as the Technical Knock Out (TKO) that many are hoping for will never happen. Why? Well read below and I’ll explain why. There are two separate questions on the table: (a) the legal requirements, and (b) the political influence of information on voters. Realistically speaking information which may have no relevance legally can of course have a huge impact on voter perceptions and therefore impact the results of the election. This post addresses Obama’s legal eligibility.

   If we are going to defeat Obama we need to do it based on the issues and not based on some trickery of the law. We need to vote against Obama because his tax plan is bad for America. We need to vote against Obama because socialized medicine is bad for America. We need to vote against Obama because he lacks the experience to lead the greatest nation on Earth. We need to vote against Obama because his past associations show a lack of understanding of what America is truly about. Voting the candidate is something we do in the primaries trying to get our candidate into the final election, however, when it comes to the General Election we have to put sour grapes aside and decide to cast our vote based on what’s best for our country. While I disagree with McCain on certain issues, hands down he is the better candidate to lead this country for the next four years. His economic policies will be better for America then Obama’s, his leadership and moral courage are without a doubt better then Obama’s.

   Constitutionally speaking there are only three requirements, (well actually four if you also read the 14th Amendment, but that would be an even tougher challenge then trying for a TKO on citizenship). Those requirements as per Article II are:
   A Natural Born Citizen,
   35 Years of Age,
   14 Years a Resident

   Now over the last few months we’ve seen multiple lawsuits challenging Obama’s technical eligibility to serve under the law based on his status as either a Natural Born Citizen or not. The Constitution, while listing it as one of the eligibility requirements, does not define what that phrase means. Does it mean you have to be born on United States soil, or, does it mean you have to derive citizenship based on birth (i.e. not a naturalized citizen). So far those challenges have been dismissed based on lack of standing, just as for fairness, was the legal challenge to Senator McCain’s eligibility. I’m disappointed on these dismissals as I truly feel there should be some mechanism in place to legally vet a candidate for public office, however it appears that will have to wait until after the election. The thrust of these challenges have been centered on a few primary possible points:
   Possible Dual Citizenship
   Indonesian Citizenship (by Adoption)
   Born in Kenya

   What does that law say about each of these possible challenges to Obama’s legal eligibility to serve in the Office of President of the United States?

   Let’s review.

   Possible Dual Citizenship
   Some have claimed that you cannot be a citizen of the United States and hold citizenship in another country. This is not the case. In the case of Mandoli v. Acheson (1952) the United States Supreme Court clearly demonstrates that US Citizens can hold citizenship in another country and by holding such citizenship do not relinquish their rights as a United States Citizen and to relinquish citizenship requires positive action after the age of maturity.

   http://supreme.justia.com/us/344/133/case.html

   Indonesian Citizenship (by Adoption)
   The claim is that Obama lost his United States citizenship when adopted in Indonesia. However, no adoption records have been presented, only a school registration slip listing his citizenship as Indonesian. I hate to point out, but school records are not adoption proceeding, they are applications filled out by parents trying to get their kids into school. Might he have been adopted? Maybe, maybe not – but a school registration is not proof.

   But actually that whole discussion, while it might impact voters, is irrelevant to his constitutional eligibility as US Citizenship is determined by US law and not by Indonesian Law. Indonesia’s view of his dual citizenship status does not change in anyway the view of the United States’ view of his citizenship status. Under United States Law the parents of a minor child cannot relinquish the US Citizenship of that child prior to the age of 21 (law at the time) as per the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 or prior to 18 years of age (current law) per the United States Code Title 8 Section 1401. Since Obama never relinquished his citizenship after the age of maturity, and his parents could not have relinquished it for him as a minor, then he never lost his citizenship status so no naturalization or oath of allegiance would have been required.

   Section 349 (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by — (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as a result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such a person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ….(LINK)

   Born in Kenya
   The final legal challenge is based on the idea that Obama was born in Kenya and his mother then flew to Hawaii to register the birth. This is the issue which generates all the discussion about his birth certificate. The perception is that the law of at the time (Immunization and Nationality Act of 1952) required that a person born to a couple where one was a US Citizen (Stanley Ann Dunham) and the other an Alien (Barrak Obama Sr, Kenyan) – that the US Citizen had to have been a citizen for 10 years, 5 of which were after the age of 14 to be able to pass citizenship to an offspring by birth. Current law as contained in USC Title 8 Section 1401 (paragraph g) states that to pass citizenship in this case the parent need only have been a citizen for 5-years two of which were after the age of 14.

   But you say the law from 1952 is applicable, not the current law? Not quite.

   This now appears to be incorrect as in 1994 Public Law 103-416 was passed which is the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994. This law makes current immigration law applicable retroactive to Obama’s birth in 1961. As such it does not matter if Obama was born in Kenya or in Hawaii as he would have been a citizen by birth either way. By his mother’s status if born in Kenya and by his location if born in Hawaii.

   UNITED STATE CODE
   TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
   (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years… (LINK)

   Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

   TITLE I–NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

   SEC. 101. EQUAL TREATMENT OF WOMEN IN CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP TO CHILDREN BORN ABROAD.

   (c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act) as though the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)). (LINK)

   In closing I urge all American’s to weigh the candidates and base your decision on the course you wish to set for America over the next 4-years.

   God bless the USA.

5. The Great Obama Swindle of 2008 | Chris Clark's Web Site Says:
   November 1st, 2008 at 8:15 am

   [...] Smooth Stone » Smooth Stone Archive » The Great Obama Swindle of 2008: “But that’s not what Obama’s lawyers are doing, they’re filling motions for summary judgment, not on the merits of the case, but on ‘technicalities,’ at least in the Berg case, arguing that Citizens, voters, do not have standing to enforce the United States Constitution, and at least one judge, Richard Barclay Surrick, has agreed.” [...]

Leave a Reply