|
In our three prior articles we discussed our
intention to publish an
open letter to President-Elect Obama
in USA TODAY. In effect, the
open letter would be a Petition for Redress of a
violation of the natural born citizen clause of the
Constitution (Article II, Section 1).
The First Amendment to the Constitution
guarantees a citizen’s Right to Petition officials
of the Government for Redress (i.e., for a Remedy)
of alleged violations of the Constitution. Inherent
in the Right to Redress is the citizen’s Right to a
response.
We are in the process of raising $90,000 to
pay for the publication of the Open Letter and a
room at the National Press Club to discuss any
response by Mr. Obama.
Time is of the essence. We would like to
publish the open letter next week and hold the press
conference at the National Press club one week
later, in advance of the dates when the Electoral
College’s state electors are certified cast their
votes. If Mr. Obama is not able to prove his
eligibility, the electors will have to cast their
votes for someone else for it would be treason to
the Constitution to cast their votes for a usurper.
The purpose of this update is twofold: (1)
to provide the updated total of the funds received
to date; and (2), to respond to some of the comments
we have received regarding the open letter.
FUNDS
As of Noon today, we have received $17,839
to pay for the open letter.
CLICK HERE to make your secure,
(tax deductible) donation
to the WTP Foundation.
COMMENTS
Of course, we are pleased by the number of
people who have responded by expressing their
support for the project and the compelling need to
determine the truth regarding the eligibility
question.
However, some people have asked questions or
otherwise expressed their disagreement. What follows
is our response to the most frequently asked
questions and comments received.
COMMENT:
I am appalled by your
claim regarding Barack Obama. This country has been
such in a turmoil for years and years and now you
are adding to it. I may have agreed in the past of
some of your beliefs regarding the income tax
system, however as far as Obama is concerned, its
time to some of us or you to just let go. This is
where I know I am not free in this country. Someday,
If I would decide to put my candidacy I would always
be questioned by some so-called true patriotic or a
true born American because I am a Canadian with dual
citizenship. I do not know about people of this
country.. I would rather have Barack Obama over John
Mc Cain as president. Where I know I will have a
chance for little breathing rather than your
so-called true born American Mc Cain who will make
sure that my person will have no breathing area. Go
ahead make your case, this is just prejudice against
Mr. Obama.
RESPONSE:
We make no claim regarding Mr. Obama, other than he
has refused to provide proof of his eligibility to
hold the office of the President of the United
States, as he is required to do by the Constitution.
The reason this country is in a turmoil for “years
and years” is because of the continuing violations
of the war powers, money, tax, privacy, and other
prohibitions of the Constitution, including the
enumerated powers clauses of the Legislative Branch.
If the Government would only follow the rule book
all of our problems would disappear.
Remember, the Constitution is a set of principles to
govern the government. It is all that stands between
the People and total tyranny and despotism. However,
the Constitution can’t defend itself. It just sits
there. At the end of the day, it’s up to the People
to hold the Government in check by claiming and
exercising their “capstone” Right to Redress as
guaranteed by the last ten words of the First
Amendment. The way the system of governance is
working in America is in sharp contrast to the way
it was designed to work. We are operating as a pure
democracy with total reliance on the electoral
process and the public policy positions of
candidates.
We are not operating as the constitutional republic
we were designed to be, with elected officials bound
and limited by the chains of the Constitution. With
public education having all but replaced private
education in America it is not surprising the
educators have determined it is not in their best
interest to teach the children the historical
context and purpose of our founding documents.
Instead, the people learn to couch everything in
political terms (if you don’t like what is going on,
just vote for someone else). Just as we cannot tax
our way into economic prosperity, we cannot elect
our way out of tyranny, especially with someone who
is unfit to be the Ruler of a Free People.
COMMENT: How did the GOP
miss this?
RESPONSE:
When contacted, McCain's campaign said it
would be “non-collegial” for one Senator to question
the citizenship of another. In addition, when you
live in a glass house it is not a good idea for you
to throw stones. There is compelling evidence that
Mr. McCain also fails to meet the eligibility
requirements. See
Mr. Donofrio’s brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.
COMMENT: Who would become
President if Mr. Obama is found to be ineligible?
RESPONSE:
The state electors would be free to cast their votes
for anyone. Presumably they would cast their votes
for another Democrat. Much depends on if and when
Mr. Obama is determined to be ineligible. Attorney
Donofrio addresses the issue in his
brief.
COMMENT: It is my
understanding that there will be an answer to this
situation on Dec. 1st.
RESPONSE:Mr.
Berg has asked the Supreme Court of the United
States to hear an appeal of the lower court’s
decision to dismiss (for lack of “standing”) his
legal challenge to Mr. Obama’s eligibility. December
1st is the day by which Mr. Obama may
respond to Mr. Berg's request of the Supreme Court
to accept the case. Mr. Obama does not have to
respond to the current request by Mr. Berg.
Whether he does or not, the Court will decide soon
after December 1 if it will accept the case. The
Court may well decide that it will not accept the
case, meaning it agrees Mr. Berg does not have
standing to ask any court to require Mr. Obama to
prove his eligibility. Regardless, I believe it is a
good idea to take the matter to the court of public
opinion. Mr. Obama does not strike me as a man whose
pride would prevent him from easily proving his
eligibility by simply releasing the requested
documents – documents that ought to be readily
available to him as a natural born citizen of
the United States that has not relinquished his
American citizenship.
COMMENT: It seems that
arguing the nationality of a man that was born in
Hawaii is a stupid fight. Those donations could be
used to continue the Iraq war opposition, or the IRS
litigations, or even getting back to the patriot
act. These as you know are much more pressing
issues that could certainly use an $80K shot of
help.
RESPONSE:
As
a 30-year defender of the Constitution and the Rule
of Law, I could not look myself in the mirror
everyday having suddenly decided the Constitution
was not to be construed in its entirely, but,
instead, is a menu with a prohibition(s) to be
ignored by me for self-serving reasons (such as my
like for Barack Obama as a decent person and
potentially the perfect leader at this time in our
history). In effect, if I exercised the option to
look the other way when faced with evidence of
any single violation of the Constitution I would
be surrendering my Right to ever again seek to hold
government accountable to that divinely inspired
book of rules. What Right would I have to seek to
prevent rule by man or whim if I, myself, became
whimsical or capricious regarding the history,
meaning, effect and significance of every provision
of the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence?
COMMENT: WOW! did i make
a mistake having anything to do with WTP. I should
have looked closer. I didn't know i had to own a
sheet and pointed hood. Sorry, i know you want have
a problem with this. But this Mississippi black man,
is out of here. By the way, when i hear about any of
your court dates concerning income taxes. I will be
glad to testify, about what i see as your rightwing
racist actions. Maybe your real purpose for not
wanting to pay income taxes, has more to do with
succeeding from the union. WT-WHITE-P.
RESPONSE:
The
Constitution is not a menu. Every one of its
provisions must be defended, no matter how painful,
if it is to have the meaning intended. Do you have
proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship? If so, please
provide it.
I always see people without noticing the color of their skin,
until people such as yourself bring skin color to my
attention – thereby forcing me to notice skin color
and to confront those who still cite race as a means
of advancing their perspectives. The mere fact that
Obama won the general election speaks volumes about
the fact that this country is well past its past.
Besides adding my voice to those who are asking for
proof of Mr. Obama's eligibility, (which I would do
no matter who the candidate was that refused to
provide the proof), please tell me what it is I said
or did that led you to the conclusion you have
expressed in your email.
COMMENT: I was wondering
where I could find more information on the
prerequisites for becoming the US President (in
respect to citizenship). I looked through the US
Constitution, but only found it cover it in one area
(Article 2 section 1). “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; neither
shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five
Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the
United States.” Where do I find out about the
specifics that are brought up in your recent email
discussing Citizen Philip Berg lawsuit? I had heard,
or read, that the mother also has to be at least 19
years of age, but I can find no proof of that
requirement.
RESPONSE:
I believe you will find answers to your questions in
Mr. Berg’s complaint and
Mr. Donofrio’s brief to the Supreme Court.
COMMENT: As you can see
from "g" below, the fact that his mother was a US
citizen and lived here automatically makes him a
citizen. This is all very dumb unless I’m missing
something.
Title 8 of the US Code (Section 1401.)
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at
birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the
United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian,
Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
Provided, That the granting of citizenship under
this subsection shall not in any manner impair or
otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal
or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and
its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are
citizens of the United States and one of whom has
had a residence in the United States or one of its
outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such
person;
(d) a person born outside of
the United States and its outlying possessions of
parents one of whom is a citizen of the United
States who has been physically present in the United
States or one of its outlying possessions for a
continuous period of one year prior to the birth of
such person, and the other of whom is a national,
but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the
United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of
the United States who has been physically present in
the United States or one of its outlying possessions
for a continuous period of one year at any time
prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the
United States while under the age of five years,
until shown, prior to his attaining the age of
twenty-one years, not to have been born in the
United States;
(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable
service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or
periods of employment with the United States
Government or with an international organization as
that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by
such citizen parent, or any periods during which
such citizen parent is physically present abroad as
the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member
of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the
Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an
international organization as defined in section
288 of title 22, may be included in order to
satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this
paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to
persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the
same extent as if it had become effective in its
present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon
(Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the
limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an
alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the
United States who, prior to the birth of such
person, had resided in the United States.
RESPONSE:
Please review the statement of facts included in
Mr. Berg’s complaint.
Regarding your specific issue, see page 4.
Apparently, the law you cite was not the law at the
time of Mr. Obama’s birth. The law in 1961 required
his mother to have been an American citizen and
physically resident inside the U.S. for five
years after reaching the age of 14. His mother
was 18 at the time of Mr. Obama’s birth, and
therefore could not give birth to a natural
U.S. citizen on foreign soil.
COMMENT: You are letting
your PERSONAL OPINIONS get in the way of your agenda
of LIBERTY for the citizens. You are UNDERMINING
your own cause!
RESPONSE:
My
personal opinion about Mr. Obama actually conflicts
with my decision to seek proof of his eligibility. I
like him and believe he could be a great leader. My
cause is the Constitution and its accountability
clause. When there is evidence of a violation of any
provision of the Constitution, and a citizen has
formally petitioned for redress, the government
official has an obligation to respond. The risk of
empowering a constitutionally ineligible person with
the vast power of the Presidency is enormous for our
nation.
COMMENT: Please go to
www.politico.com
and read up on politico rumors, you might just save
yourself some breath.
RESPONSE:
Politico.com refers the reader to FactCheck.org.
Neither provides definitive, conclusive legal proof
of Obama’s eligibility. See our comments below.
COMMENT: Senator Obama
has already produced his birth certificate:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate?source=source=sem-pm-fts-bc-search-nsw&gclid=CP7rt8_k0pYCFQQrFQodtg983Q
RESPONSE:
Fightthesmears.com provides no clear proof of
eligibility. The document proffered by Obama is a
computer generated document that even the state
officials of Hawaii have yet to declare the
significance of. See our comments below.
COMMENT: Obama is just as
eligible as McCain. Did you know that McCain was
born outside the US and Obama voted for the
resolution that McCain got so he could run?
RESPONSE:
Senator McCain is not the President-elect, Mr. Obama
is. Mr. Obama has refused to take advantage of
numerous opportunities to produce evidence of his
eligibility to a court of law or anyone else.
COMMENT: I am saddened to
see that
givemeliberty.org
has actually invested donations made by concerned
citizens to jump on a ridiculous conspiracy
bandwagon. Is it honestly worth the efforts to
support a lawsuit made by a disgruntled Clinton
supporter? Are we really to believe that all the
other candidates, campaign managers, lobbyists, and
the entire republican party missed something so
large as the "factual evidence" that Obama is not a
citizen of the U.S.? Are we really so eager to waste
money given by people who believe in real issues,
not preposterous conspiracy theories?
RESPONSE:
As
we have said in our articles, only money donated for
the publication of the open letter will be used. The
Foundation’s general treasury will not be used. Mr.
Berg has repeatedly been heard to say his only
reason for challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility is
his belief in the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
Enforcing the Constitution is certainly not a waste
of money.
COMMENT: i've been a
supporter of you guys for a few months now, but this
latest email leaves a bad taste in my mouth. i
can't believe you actually think Obama is not an
american citizen. i am completely appalled. it is
such an ignorant statement, you need to do some more
research before you spew your ignorance through the
internet, particularly just days before the
election; or was that your intent? you have lost my
support completely.
RESPONSE:
While we feel Mr. Obama has a duty to speak, for at
some point silence becomes admission, anyone
can produce the documentary evidence to prove his
eligibility. As we wrote, Mr. Berg is entitled to
his arguments, but he is not entitled to his version
of the facts. It is up to Mr. Obama or his
surrogates to genuinely dispute Mr. Berg’s facts. It
has not happened yet.
COMMENT: I am shocked to
think that you could actually prefer John McCain as
president in our current economic crises in this
country. If ever there was someone who would happily
further restrict our liberties and defy the
Constitution it is McCain and his running mate!!
RESPONSE:
We
avoid political questions like the plague. It makes
no difference to this organization who is in office.
We assume they all suffer the same human frailties
we all suffer from. We scrutinize government
behavior, compare the behavior to the requirements
of the Constitution and where we see an impropriety
we confront it, no matter the officials’ political
stripes and no matter the level of practical
difficulty in securing the Rule of Law. Without the
Law to restrict men, we have chaos and tyranny. The
30 year history of this organization and its
predecessors is an open book and proves the point.
COMMENT: Before you spend
all that money, are you sure it’s a problem?
Barrack’s birth certificate:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
Snopes response:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
RESPONSE:
Neither photobucket.com nor Snopes.com provide
conclusive proof of eligibility. The document made
available by Obama is a computer-generated form
created in 2007. While it may be authentic, in that
it was issued by the State, the meaning of its
content is not at all clear. What is needed is
public examination of Obama's
vault certificate of live birth.
COMMENT: Return the
donations.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hawaii_Verifies_Obama_s_Birth_Certificate_GENUINE
RESPONSE:
Digg.com provides no proof of eligibility.
COMMENT: Do you really
want more of the same with a McCain/Palin ticket?
RESPONSE:
First things first. Let’s make sure we are not
starting the next term with someone who is
ineligible and to whom no one would owe any respect,
loyalty, honor or obedience. Then, whoever the
President turns out to be, Mr. Obama, or Mr. Biden,
or anyone else, let us pray enough People will
become better informed about their Rights and the
obligations of the Government and more motivated to
hold him accountable to the Constitution.
COMMENT: "Barack Obama
was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women
& Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein
Obama, Sr., a black Kenyan from Nyangʼoma
Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, a
white American from Wichita, Kansas."--Wikipedia, on
Barack Obama. Republicans are just pissed because
he's going to be one of the greatest Presidents
there ever was (except for the Socialistic
tendencies, which of course will be curbed and
fought as is proper). While the LIBERTARIAN
principles are best for America, we seem to be
presented with only two 'viable' candidates (or,
rather, only two which stand any real chance of
getting elected), and John McCain is downright evil.
So that leaves the kinder, gentler, more reasonable
and rational Barack Obama, who will hopefully undo
much of the Republican damage that has been done in
an illegal, unconstitutional, unprovoked
imperialistic invasion of Iraq. Just drop the whole
thing about Obama not being American - he IS
American, born and raised.
RESPONSE:
Wikipedia is not Mr. Obama. Nor does Wikipedia
support its assertion. Again, this is a serious
constitutional question. We need more
constitutionalists willing to give their all in
defense of the Constitution and the Rule of Law,
rather than people making choices based merely on
Internet information sources, or the public policy
positions, campaign promises and demeanor of the
candidates.
COMMENT: The Secretary of
State in Hawaii has proven that he is an American
citizen. Now, shut the hell up!
RESPONSE:
In
fact, neither the Hawaiian Secretary of State nor
any other Hawaiian official has provided proof of
eligibility. See our comments below.
COMMENT: I do not
understand the issue. If a child is born outside
the USA to an American parent, it is the child's and
parents right to claim US citizenship. My 2 boys
were born in England. They hold multiple passports
as their mother is British and their father is
American. There was no swearing in or anything
else. As long as we could show that the father is
in fact a US citizen, by just showing a birth
certificate. With that we get a foreign birth
registry as a US citizen giving birth abroad. With
that they hold the right for an American passport
which, makes that a proof of citizenship. They also
have their British passports. So what is the issue
here? Is Obama's mother American? If so all the
rest is just paper work. How much paper work did we
have back in 1776? This issue is not in my opinion
a good fight for the Constitution and rule of law.
With this constitutional rule, we can all know why
it was put in the constitution at the time. If his
mother is American, then he is American unless he
denounced his American citizenship. Did he do that?
RESPONSE:
In
1961, U.S Immigration and Naturalization law
provided that if only one of the parents of a
foreign born child was a U.S. Citizen, that U.S.
parent must have resided inside the U.S. at least 5
years after reaching the age of 14. Obama’s mother
was only 14 at the time of Obama’s birth. If she
was in Kenya and give birth before the age of 19,
Obama can NOT be a natural born U.S. citizen,
even if he obtained citizenship at a subsequent time
via legal naturalization. See Berg’s lawsuit for
more of the facts and applicable law.
COMMENT: I TAKE EXCEPTION
WITH THE SLANDER YOU AIMED AT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN,
BARRACK OBAMA.
RESPONSE:
There is a difference between citizenship and being
a natural born citizen. See Mr. Donofrio’s brief to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
I don’t know where the truth lies, but I do believe
government is meant to be the Creator's minister of
justice on earth and service to the Constitution is
service to the Creator. I like Mr. Obama. However, I
became concerned when I read Judge Surrick’s
decision. How easy it would have been for Mr. Obama
to produce evidence of his citizenship, thereby
settling the matter.
The Constitution is a strict set of principles to
govern the government. It does not offer a menu of
enticing "selections" intended for use by the People
for a "one from column A and one from column B"
approach to government, depending on mood or whim.
The Constitution presents a list of prohibitions and
restrictions to be construed and enforced in its
entirety by the People.
Remember, the most pernicious form of tyranny is
that which disguises itself as a benefactor to its
victims.
Click here to read the
draft full-page USA TODAY Letter to Obama.
See the EVIDENCE from our 11/12 update.
DONATE: Click Here to make your secure,
(tax deductible) donation
to the WTP Foundation.
Click
here to see how much money we have raised
so far.
|
