Font size: Font face:

This is WND printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89078/

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Keyes: President 'has something to hide' on eligibility

Says Dem 'asked to be chosen, therefore must answer'


Alan Keyes

Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate who now is a plaintiff in one of the many lawsuits seeking to verify whether Barack Obama qualifies under the U.S. Constitution’s requirements to occupy the Oval Office, says the tactics adopted by lawyers for the president confirm there is an issue for the courts to investigate.

Keyes, who was the candidate of the American Independent Party, cited a recent exchange with lawyers representing Obama in which they warned they might seek monetary penalties against those raising the question of Obama’s eligibility under the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen.

“It confirms the common sense suspicion that he won’t act forthrightly in this matter because he has something to hide,” Keyes wrote on his blog after WND reported the warning about “sanctions” was raised by Obama’s defense lawyers.

The onetime U.S. ambassador explained on his posting that those raising questions over Obama’s elibigility – so far – have simply been ignored by courts.

“In effect, the courts are refusing to admit plaintiffs on this matter into the courtroom, thereby denying them justice,” he wrote. “Madison wrote, ‘Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It will be pursued either until it be obtained or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.’”

“The denial of justice is thus a despotic act that violates the basis not only of just government, but of civil society itself,” Keyes wrote.

Obama voluntarily placed himself in the position of being asked to provide his information, he said.

“Given the Constitutional requirement, the only fact citizens need to justify their suit is the fact that Obama ran for president. He asked to be chosen, and therefore must answer the eligibility question,” Keyes wrote,

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 more than 240,000 others and sign up now!

“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.

WND has reported on multiple legal challenges that have alleged Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, “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 claim he was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. 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 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.

Several details of Obama’s past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and on what nation’s passport he traveled to Pakistan in the ’80s, as well as conflicting reports from Obama’s family about his place of birth.

The Keyes case is being handled largely by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, but others playing a key role in the legal actions include Orly Taitz of California as well as Philip Berg, both of whom already have had their arguments rejected as not worthy of hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a commentary on the dispute, Keyes wrote that the suggestion of sanctions “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.

The legal sanctions being sought are not the only obstacle facing those who say they want to investigate the truth of Obama’s eligibility. Four state lawmakers in Tennessee recently agreed to act as plaintiffs in a case being assembled by Taitz, and immediately were attacked by columnist Gail Kerr in the Nashville Tennessean, who compared their plan to “a resolution honoring the Easter Bunny for doing such a great job with the annual colored egg delivery system.”

The columnist wrote that Obama’s campaign already has released documentation of his birth.

“They put it on their Internet site. Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen. His father was from Kenya. The man was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Hawaii. That, fellows, is a state. As in the ‘United STATES of America.’ It counts. See?” Kerr wrote.

Critics, however, have pointed out that the “Certification of Live Birth” posted by the Obama campaign and cited by various “truth” organizations is not the same as a birth certificate, and in fact under Hawaii law at the time was granted to babies who were not born in Hawaii.

Taitz wrote that her supporters should send “flowers, candy, banners, appreciation cards, teddy bears with big love sign and thank you sign to these courageous lawmakers: Eric Swafford, Glen Casada, Stacey Campfield and Frank Niceley.”

The suggestion for sanctions came after Kreep sought records from Occidental College about Obama’s attendance there.

The lawyer for the college, Stuart W. Rudnick of Musick, Peeler & Garrett, urgently contacted Fredric D. Woocher of Strumwasser & Woocher.

“This firm is counsel to Occidental College. The College is in receipt of the enclosed subpoena that seeks certain information concerning President-Elect Barack Obama,” he wrote via fax. “Inasmuch as the subpoena appears to be valid on its face, the College will have no alternative but to comply with the subpoena absent a court order instructing otherwise.”

Within hours, Woocher contacted Kreep regarding the issue, telling him, “It will likely not surprise you to hear that President-elect Obama opposes the production of the requested records.

“In order to avoid the needless expense of our bringing and litigating a Motion to Quash the subpoena, I am writing to ask whether you would be willing to agree voluntarily to cancel or withdraw the subpoena.”

Woocher warned, “Please be advised, in particular, that in the event we are forced to file a motion to quash and we prevail in that motion, we will seek the full measure of monetary sanctions provided for in the Code of Civil Procedures.”

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii, which the state’s procedures allowed at the time?


© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.