Savage Interviews Orly Taitz

Michael Savage interview Orly Taitz on his Radio broadcast yesterday on August 3. The portion I listened had plenty to say about President Barack Hussein Obama’s natural born citizen status but I did not hear anything about Taitz’s discovery of an Obama Kenyan birth certificate.

I am guessing Taitz is abandoning the birth certificate as authentic or at least backing away from it. I am certain if Taitz felt strongly about its authenticity show would make the focus of the interview about the birth certificate document more than the usual ‘natural born citizen’ as the theme of the interview.

Too bad, I was kind of wishing Taitz had enough faith in the document authenticity to put up a very public campaign focusing on President BHO’s penchant for being a prevaricator.

JRH 8/4/09

Questioning BHO’s Presidential Legitimacy Keeps Rolling On

I have been haphazardly following an issue that the Mainstream Media (MSM) has amazingly NEVER sought the details about. That issue is the authenticity of President Barack Hussein Obama’s status of eligibility to the Office of President of the United States of America. (One of SlantRight’s last posts on this issue is here.)

I say “haphazardly” because even if BHO mans up about his original Birth Certificate about the location of his actual birth, the Constitution is vague enough to allow Congress to define certain elements of what is considered a Natural Born American citizen.

If Barack Hussein Obama was actually born in Kenya as many Conservative conspiracy hunters believe, then all the Democrat Party controlled Congress has to do is change the rules to fit the vagueness of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is one speculative scenario: There is absolutely no argument that BHO’s mother is a Natural Born American citizen. All Congress has to do with a simple majority is define a Natural Born citizen as one who has at least one parent Naturally Born on the soil of the United States of America no matter the location of the child.

Shazzam! The location of President Barack Hussein Obama’s birth becomes irrelevant.

The reality is Congress has been updating the definition of a Natural Born citizen for years.

Congressional Authority:

In the absence of a judicial interpretation of Constitutional language, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. A federal court would likely give great deference to Congress’ interpretation. The Congress also has broad authority regarding issues of citizenship. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants authority to Congress to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Several federal judicial decisions recognize Congress’ plenary powers regarding issues pertaining to citizenship that do not specifically fit under the Fourteenth Amendment. Notably Rogers v. Bellei (401 US 815) and US v. Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649) say that Congress has the power to regulate matters pertaining to citizenship not specifically defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In addition, Congress has previously used their naturalization power to define the term “natural born” as used in a statute. In the Naturalization Act of 1790 Congress defined “natural born” to include children born abroad to citizen parents. Although the language was not kept in later naturalization laws, that specific language was not challenged. (Natural Born Citizen Act Summary - http://www.jcics.org/natural%20born%20summary%20(word).doc. From Joint Council on International Children’s Services)

So President Barack Hussein Obama has the absolute protection from his political party (Senator Arlen Specter makes it easy to quash any debate in the Senate). Why does he still fear the release of his original birth certificate?

In the realm of pure speculation the fear could be related to BHO being born in Kenya rather than Hawaii. Although the legal hoops can be leaped through by Obamasiah, his credibility to manage the executive branch based on the so-called mantra of “Change” would be damaging. I believe it would be so damaging that the 2010 election would swing power back to the Republicans in Congress thereby erasing any prospect on President Obama’s Left Wing agenda. With a public outrage being realized by voters that would understand they were hornswoggled by Obama, the Democrats and the Leftist MSM there would be legitimate calls for investigation of the Slanted Right have been up in arms about Obama ever since they realized the old enemy Hillary Clinton was not to be the target.

Just as a side bar of disclosure I am well aware that there are many of my fellow Conservatives who have now been labeled “Birthers” will dispute the power of Congress to make laws defining the specifics of a Natural Born Citizen. And the Birthers may even have a case for that; however good luck and pressing that through Left admiring activist judges.

Here is one example of the belief Congress does not have the authority to define a Natural Born Citizen.

With the Birthers in mind, read this pitch from the United States Justice Foundation to keep the battle going to expose the illegitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency. To read the USJF ad battling to expose BHO’s birth status, go to the end of this post at SlantRight.com.

JRH 4/4/09

More Obama Legitimacy News

Barack Hussein Obama has been sworn into the Office of President of the United States of America. Before that January 20th date there was marginal coverage of President Obama’s obvious cover-up pertaining to his eligibility for the Office of President.

The thing that Conspiracy Theorists should be hopping mad about is that the vale of darkness is not coming from what BHO has some control over. Nay friends, the Federal and State Judiciary, State Secretaries of State, a Hawaiian Governor, Hospitals and related universities are ALL part of a cover-up that by virtue of inaction calls into question President Obama’s legitimacy to his elected Office.

After January 20th the Mainstream Media coverage of the question of BHO status as a Natural Born Citizen has equally vanished adding the mystery of cover-up.

Now it seems only a few stalwart blogs which have a specific reading constituency and a few out of the Mainstream Media keep plugging along trying to get a Court – indeed – the Supreme Court of the United States to hear their voice.

Of course those who are still pursuing BHO’s legitimacy have an agenda to cause a Constitutional crisis in which the end result is the defrocking of President Obama of his Office. I can join that club; however the real issue is simply affording the American public honest answers to LEGITIMATE questions.

No matter if the answers are favorable or unfavorable for Barack Hussein Obama; the actual litmus test is the authority and viability of the U.S. Constitution as the frame work for the rule of law in America.

This multi-level of private, academic institutional, hospital, State and Federal government cover-up raises an implication that everyone’s hoped for Obamasiah is a man that does not honor his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

If President Obama does not honor his oath, what does that say about his intentions to transform America to the Left no matter the opposition as well as his commitment to America’s National Security at home and abroad?

WorldNetDaily (WND) is one of those out of the Mainstream Media outlets that are definitely not respected by Leftist and there are a significant amount of centrists and Conservatives that question WND’s quality of information. I for one trust the angle of WND and I certainly doubt this media outlet does any worse on the political Right then say the New York Times does on the political Left. There is an old saying about processing information: Be at least as smart as a cow; eat the hay and spit out the sticks. I suspect that is an axiom that could be applied to the entire political spectrum. One stick you should spit out immediately is that any form of media is unbiased. Those days are gone.

Even Fox News that bills itself as “fair and balanced” is obviously leaning toward the Right. Thank God they do. At least there is another MSM angle for people to find some good hay to eat to distinguish form the sticks in most of the Slanted Left MSM.

Anyway … Getting back to BHO’s legitimacy to be President; I read a WND article of the latest efforts to discover that legitimacy.

Evidently a gal lawyer from the State of California managed to get into a lecture given by Chief Justice John Roberts at the University of Idaho. Attorney Orly Taitz pressed the Chief Justice about the BHO eligibility to be President. She got a promise from the Chief Justice in front of witnesses that included people of State and Academic stature to look into the Obama mystery.

Take a moment and read the WND REPORT.

JRH 3/18/09

Senator: Eligibility is up to the voters

Senator Mel Martinez actually responded to one of his constituents that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility for the Office of President is irrelevant since the majority of voters “vetted” by choosing him to be President.

I can hardly believe the Republican Senator from Florida is essentially saying that the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant, can you?

Here is the WorldNetDaily report on this latest obfuscation and cover-up news about President Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship and eligibility to be President.

JRH 3/6/09 (Hat Tip: Above Top Secret)

America’s Imperial Presidency

It is irrelevant as to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party; the Office of President in America has become an Imperial Presidency.

The Imperial Presidency can be defined, succinctly, as a structure in which enormous discretionary power to respond to national security crises and perceived dangers is concentrated in the office of the president. In this scheme, Congress, willingly or not, is only a bit player. Although the term has a pejorative connotation, it is not so much the existence of an Imperial Presidency that has spurred public backlashes as it is the abuses of power that have sometimes come with it. (Imperial Presidency – govexec.com)

The Party out of the Presidential Office usually harangues the President when there is an obvious exercise of power and the Party in Office often looks the other way.

In my opinion an Imperial Presidency is a good thing with a wise leader and yet it could be a bad thing under a President that fits the old maxim – Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Again the favor of the media, the voters or the out of power Party is usually the ones hollering from the roof tops that an Imperial President has corrupted his power. In the long run it is the evaluation of history that shines the light of motive and the end-game as to wickedness or goodness.

For instance every Left Wing Nut (and admittedly many on the center Right) will display President George W. Bush as an example of power corrupting the Office of President. I may be in the minority but I disagree. The Bush Administration prevented any future attack on American soil utilizing the very methods that Lefties would call corrupted power. That’s just me. The debate on what is more valuable for American society – security or absolute civil liberties – during a national conflict will go on for some time only again to be evaluated in the future by history.

So what is John getting at?

I just ran across a WorldNetDaily article that is still writing about President Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be in the Office of President.

The article talks about all the failed law suits to try and force BHO to divulge historical documents pertaining to his eligibility to be President. Further WND talks about the current law suit initiated by Alan Keyes which has not yet bitten the dust that essentially wanted the California Secretary of State not to certify BHO’s Electoral College Electors to cast their votes until the historical documents are made public.

The law suit had to be amended when indeed the Electoral College certified Barack Hussein Obama as the next President of the USA; however I understand the law suit has been amended to still demand the documents.

So here’s the thing: The Courts on all levels of authority right up to the Supreme Court has looked the other way using legalese to ignore the eligibility issue. Does anyone think the current Imperial President will allow pre-election personal documents see the light of day when he definitely has the post-election power to delay and obfuscate the production of said documents at least until the end of his Office as President?

I am thinking NO.

Yet I am all for these stalwart litigators to plowing away (if they got the dough) for one day BHO will not be in Office (barring any extra-Constitutional coup). On that day history will demonstrate if BHO was a wise Imperial President or a Power Corrupt President.

JRH 2/14/09

Strong Willed Conservative Still Looking for Birth Certificate

I guess I am gratified there are some stalwart Conservatives that are refusing to lay down over the issue of President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “Natural Born Citizen.” I have alluded my thoughts that I believe the Constitution gives a lot of leeway for Congress to interpret Article 2, Section 1 of what constitutes a “Natural Born Citizen” which one has to be to qualify to be elected to President of the United States (POTUS).

I would love to see President-Elect Obama disqualified from taking Office on legal merits but I just don’t think it is going to happen. For one thing both Houses of Congress by the graciousness of the American voters has placed the Democratic Party in FIRM control. I suspect if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) would ever have the guts to hear a case (and there are several) concerning BHO’s citizenship eligibility, SCOTUS would merely address Congress to produce definitive clarity to the satisfaction of the sitting Justices’ illuminated interpretation of Constitutional Law.

You can check HERE and HERE of posts I have made related to this issue.

You might be able to guess that I get a lot of paid ads from Internet periodicals that have to pay their bills. One such ad came from the United States Justice Foundation (USJF). In this case I am not going to post the ad; however the ad had an interesting link to a USJF article dated Dec. 15, 2008 by Joan Swirsky.

Swirsky makes a case for Conservatives to keep fighting for the SCOTUS to hear one of the several law suits questioning BHO’s Natural Born Citizen status. She even employs some of the Conspiracy Theories that are beginning to emerge surrounding BHO’s Birth Certificate and Natural Born Citizenship.

I love a good Conspiracy Theory. Don’t you?

Here is one that Swirsk does not mention:

BHO has entered the realm of the Clinton Cabal utilizing Clinton power and Mainstream Media affinity to hush ANYTHING that might hinder a BHO Presidency.

What do the Clintons get out of BHO joining the Cabal? Re-entrance to the stage of actual political power.

Basically BHO and the Clintons have much of the same domestic goals of transforming America; ergo a union is a win-win situation for the charismatic Barack Hussein Obama and the Clinton stratagem.

What do you think? Come on, really. What do you think?

I don’t know. Maybe the valiant Conservatives utilizing a primarily Leftist American judicial system may overturn the correct stone that either the eligible voting public, Congressional members or even SCOTUS cannot ignore.

Anything is possible.

JRH 12/16/08

Obama birth challenge refuted by SCOTUS

SCOTUS did exactly what I expected concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a natural born – NOTHING.

By doing nothing SCOTUS avoided a Constitutional crisis of numerous potential hazards. By doing nothing SCOTUS made sure the mechanizations of the Executive and Legislative Branch work uninterrupted.

JRH 12/8/08

More on Obama Citizenship

As of this writing at 5:30 PM CT, SCOTUS is still silent on Donofrio v. Wells.

Wesley Pruden writes his thoughts about the suit concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s natural born status. I like Pruden’s evaluation because I agree with: fascinating prospects with zero action by SCOTUS.

A Sean Hannity forum I believe hits the nail on the head on Obama citizenship (although the focus was on the dismissal of the Berg suit; however the argument is similar).

READ PRUDEN.

JRH 12/5/08

Obama Citizenship and the Constitution

John R. Houk
© December 3, 2008

Blogger profile “Ted” has been posting numerous Comments on the Blogger version of SlantRight.com promoting an examination of President Elect Obama’s authenticity of citizenship. Normally I would be angry with “Ted” because all his Comments are completely off topic from the original post.

And yet the whole Constitutional issue of BHO’s citizenship is a fascinating constitutional dilemma that could twist and tangle constitutional law in America if a line of reasoning is pursued according to the wishes of the persistent anti-Obama Conservatives.

There are more of Ted’s Comments but here is the last one:

To say that American main stream media has failed to report what is "the story of the century" is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Their cover-up is treasonous. In the event the Supreme Court ultimately determines that Obama cannot be President -- not qualifying as an Article II "natural born citizen" -- the msm will be the blame for any civil unrest by failing to prepare the American public.

Watch this -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQnL2IwyUAs

I have tried to respond to Ted on each of his Comments with a slight rebuke added to the mix for not Commenting on topic; however this time around I found my response to be long enough that I should post the Comment itself. And so I have done so below.

****************************************

Ted it is only because I find the citizenship issue of Barack Hussein Obama to be fascinating that I do not delete these numerous off post comments.

In the spirit of the dialog you are attempting at Slant Right I have to disagree with the YouTube video you linked to.

The Constitutional issue of the definition of a "natural born citizen" is way more muddied than it is clear.

The easiest determination is a birth on American soil (hello illegal immigrants).

After that clarity begins to fog up because the Constitution itself does not define WHAT a "natural born" citizen is. Congress has via statute has been updating that definition for decades, in particular what constitutes a "natural born citizen" born outside of American soil.

I believe the latest statute allows for one natural born citizen - the male - to be a parent when the child is born outside the USA.

Is the statute Constitutional in light of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which is often now linked to the 14th Amendment to equalize the legal standing of females to males.

Although the original intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was race equality and employment rights; women have successfully adjudicated cases for equal rights. This is why critics have effectively staved off passage of the Equal Rights Amendment which is a mere three States short of passage.

Thus SCOTUS could either rule in favor of Obama citing equal rights of a woman to a man thus enabling a female natural born citizen to also be a parent to cause a birth outside the USA to be a natural born American; OR SCOTUS could merely instruct Congress to clarify the natural born citizen statutes thus far. That would mean a Dem Party dominated Congress would ensure Barack Hussein Obama's natural born status.

On the other hand it would reveal BHO as less than an honest person if indeed he was born in Kenya (as he denies). The voters would know they were duped and would have to consider what other lies BHO may have told.

***********************************
Apart from Ted’s efforts David Horowitz who I look up to as one of the heroes of exposing the global Islamic agenda, is actually lambasting anti-Obama Conservatives for trying to bring Obama’s citizenship issue front and center. I cross posted his take along with my Comment HERE.

I pointed out that I agreed to two of three of Horowitz’s objections for raising an issue (Go to the post to see the two). The Horowitz objection dealt with constitutional law versus the will of the people via a democratically ran election that made Obama President Elect.

In short Horowitz implied the U.S. Constitution should be rendered irrelevant when the will of the people have spoken and elected Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States of America.

As I intimated to Ted even if SCOTUS actually goes through with a hearing after a review (I doubt that will happen), SCOTUS should examine the issue and send clarification to Congress in which decisions are made. Obviously that will slow down the American Electoral process because if Congress does not quickly SCOTUS may suspend the January 20, 2009 Inauguration until Congress clarifies what a Natural Born citizen with clear specificity.

This is where the Constitutional crisis emerges for such a situation or ruling has never been enforced in American history. Nonetheless if SCOTUS does its job of interpreting rather than legislating and Congress does its job of legislating then the Constitutional crisis will come and go with laws becoming specific and SCOTUS keeping the Constitution the best rule of law piece of paper on earth.

And since the Dems currently have a majority in Congress and in January an even greater majority in Congress, we should know that the statute would be written to favor BHO’s natural born citizen status and the eventual Inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States.

A more likely scenario though is that SCOTUS will announce December 5th they won’t even hear the case leaving everything in limbo and still Barack Hussein Obama Inaugurated as President of the United States of America.

Just for clarity’s sake I would like to say again that I am not a BHO fan, I voted McCain/Palin. Now is the time to get over the GOP loss and build for future elections and praying that President Elect Obama makes decisions that are good for America regardless of ideology.

But we have to keep it CONSTITUTIONAL and NOT extra-Constitutional as David Horowitz implies.

Horowitz has been taking some Conservative heat for his position and as of this post has written a December 2nd and a December 3rd defense of his stand.

JRH 12/3/08
****************************

Rule of Law vs. Rule of the Demos

By David Horowitz
Posted at 3:18 PM on 12/2/2008
David’s Blog

Among the many attacks on my previous blog both abusive and not, one common theme seems to stand out. This is the claim that I have slighted the Rule of Law in favor of some misguided principle of democracy, which is not a conservative idea -- or so my critics would argue. My error is to have elevated the principle of majority rule over the rule of law.

I believe the answer to these critics is already in my original blog. The Founders lodged authority for the institution of government not in abstract principle but in the will of the people. True they put certain restraints on that will to slow it down. But ultimately, the will of the people is sovereign. That is the Constitutional principle of our system of government.

The people voted for Obama. Assuming for the sake of the argument that Obama is not a natural citizen of the United States, the question is: what are the consequences of having 9 appointed justices -- or more likely 5 of 9 justices -- tell 64 million voters that their votes don't count? Would our constitutional democracy survive such a conflict, and then would our Constitution? Ultimately, the answer to these questions lies with the people. They are the ultimate authority not some abstract Rule of Law because the Rule of Law is in any case ajudicated and enforced by (highly political) men and women, while the people in its majority have it in their power to destroy the Rule of Law if they so will. The Constitution itself recognizes this fact by giving the people the right to amend it by a two-thirds vote. This is itself a recognition that the Rule of Law is an institution of men and women.

Granted the presidential election wasn't won by a two-thirds vote. But would a decision by 9 Supreme Court justices as to whether a birth certificate was authentic be more trustworthy than the decision by 64 million voters that Obama should be president? The presidential election was a very extensive test of the people's will. So much so that I wouldn't be surprised that if Obama was found not to be a citizen and the question of amending that provision in the Constitution was then put to a vote, the amendment would have a good chance of passing.

But all of this is quite legalistic and beside the point My real question is why would anyone who cares about this country want to risk a civil conflict of this magnitude in the midst of two shooting wars with terrorist adversaries and a very hostile intenational environment. Particularly when the president-elect has appointed a national security team that a McCain Administration could live with?

"Here is an example of the general confusion of my critics:

Comment submitted by RussP in regards to blog entry: Rule of Law vs. Rule of the Demos

If Obama was born in Kenya and ran anyway, *he* is the one who perpetrated a fraud on the American people, and *he* needs to be held accountable."

Exactly who is going to hold him accountable? Not the 64 million people who voted for him. So who? 9 or 5 appointed justices? How is what they rule going to carry weight with the 64 million?

Here's another example:

"I'm wondering why people are upset with those who are questioning Obama's natural born citizen status. The responsibility for this potential constitutional crisis lies squarely on Obama."

Yes, but the consequences for making this a national issue will fall squarely on us.


At bottom, the problem with all these comments is that the people who make them haven't accepted the fact that we lost the election. We lost the election. Get used to it. That's the necessary condition for thinking clearly about the next step.
______________________________

One More Try

By David Horowitz
Posted at 7:50 AM on 12/3/2008
David’s Blog

Without exception my critics seem to think there is a Law that is objective and just and beyond the reach of human influence and judgment. Would that were the case. But it is not. And both conservatives and liberals understand this when the shoe is pinching their foot and not the other guy's. What conservative thinks there is a right to privacy in the Constitution that justifies abortion? And how many liberals think the 5 justices who gave the 2000 election to George Bush were not deciding the Florida case for political reasons?

If the facts in the Obama case were not in dispute it would be a different matter. No one doubts that Arnold Schwarzenegger was born in Austria to Austrian parents and therefore is ineligible to be President under our Constitutional rules. But in Obama's case the facts are in dispute and Obama -- who is now president-elect -- will dispute them. And that means that 9 unelected officials, all of whom have partisan allegiances, will decide those facts and therefore decide whether he is to be president. So the real question is what would be the political consequences of having 9 justices -- and more likely 5 justices -- overturn the will of 64 million voters.

Consider the bitterness, the pathological hatred of Bush, the sabotage of America's war effort by Democrats who believed that his election was illegitimate. Consider the 2 month delay this caused in the transition to the new administration and how that affected our inability to prevent 9/11 (the comprehensive counter-terrorism plan commissioned by Bush arrived on his desk on 9/10). We are fighting wars on two fronts. The attack on Mumbai is a reminder that the same could happen here at any moment. Do we have the luxury of a fratricidal conflict within our borders?

Before my critics jump in and lecture me again about the Rule of Law, consider that you might be wrong about the facts of Obama's birth or at least that the 64 million people who voted for him will not be persuaded by 5 Supreme Court justices that you are right. Then think again about the political consequences of that..
_____________________________________

Obama Citizenship and the Constitution
John R. Houk
© December 3, 2008
__________________________________

David’s Blog
Copyright©2007 [sic] FrontPageMagazine.com

Fred: Natural Born Citizen

In response to my uncertainty and guessing concerning being a natural born citizen of America, Fred with a U.S. Military email address sent this to me:

From Fred:

I suggest John Houk read either the constitution or possibly the Wikipedia definition of natural born citizen. This should make it more clear to him that BHO is clearly not a natural born citizen, unless BHO's October surprise is that he has been sidestepping this issue just to keep a conspiracy theory going, and magically he will pull out a birth certificate that is not a forgery at the last minute.

There is a slight hint of hostility from Fred concerning my thoughts on how Judge Surrick should have handle a ruling by a law suit from Philip Berg questioning Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a natural born citizen of America. If BHO was ruled to be a Naturalized citizen of America, he would be ineligible to run for the Office of President.

Fred’s hint of anger was because I thought because BHO had a natural born parent, i.e. his mother; I thought he would be eligible.

For clarity’s sake I would love Barack Hussain Obama to be ruled ineligible. I am DEFINITELY NOT in his camp for him to be elected the most Leftist/Marxist President America has ever seen. On the other hand making something up in the law that may not be there is not a fair action. I mean that is the very thing Leftists do with a Slanted Left activist judiciary – make up laws creation ex nihilo.

If indeed BHO can be shown to a Naturalized citizen rather than a Natural Born Citizen without forcing a round law into a square law, then I all for it.

Anyway I took Fred’s advice and look at Wikipedia and a website that interprets constitutional law.

I found the Wikipedia explanation to be informative yet leaving the reader to draw their conclusions rather than expressly defining a situation that might apply to Barack Hussein Obama.

The website that was the most satisfying was the U.S. Constitution Online.

The U.S. Constitution Online has a specific essay on Citizenship.

The essay (I think) shows that I could be wrong; however some slick lawyering could easily show that I am correct.

You read the essay and tell me what you think.

JRH 11/1/08 (Another Opinion)