Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
A Democrat who has filed a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s name on the 2012 election ballot for president in Florida says now is the time to resolve the controversy, because to wait would mean voters could be defrauded.
“The eligibility of defendant Obama must be dealt with now. Plaintiff Voeltz, and the rest of the electors in the state of Florida, must be assured that if they cast their votes for defendant Obama in the general election that their votes will not be in vain,” explains a filing in the case brought by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch USA on behalf of Democrat Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”
The case raises some of the same points that have been argued in other similar cases challenging Obama’s name on other state election ballots. Specifically it alleges:
On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.”
There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.”
The action follows by only weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s antecedents. The six-month-long investigation done by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that there is probable cause to believe there was forgery involved in the production of Obama’s birth certificate, and fraud in presenting that document as a genuine document.
The case explains that even if Barack Hussein Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a ‘natural-born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because, “Barack Obama Sr. was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936. Birth in Kenya made Barack Obama Sr. a British subject, according to and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.”
The latest filing came in response to Obama’s demand to the court that the case be dismissed. Among other issues, his attorneys argued that the dispute was not ready for a resolution yet since there hasn’t been a Democratic primary in the state to select a candidate.
That argument came even though the Democrat Party nominated only Obama, and state rules say that when that happens, that name automatically is the nominee.
“In Florida the voter has more rights to contest elections than in most other states,” Klayman told WND. “And we have a judge who is not afraid to make hard decisions; Judge Terry Lewis. In the Gore v. Bush case he ruled on occasion in favor of Bush even though he generally leans left. I am hopeful he will do the right thing and rule that the Florida Secretary of State must verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot for the Florida presidential election.”
The issue just has too many unanswered questions to ignore, the filing explains.
“No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”
The argument also cites Barack Obama Sr.’s birth in Kenya, making him a “British subject.”
“The British Nationality Act of 1948, Part 2, Section 5, Clause 1, makes Defendant Obama, the son of a British subject, also a British subject at birth. At best, defendant Obama was born a dual citizen of Britain and the United States. These facts make clear that defendant Obama was not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution.”
The fact that state officials have sworn an oath the “support, protect, and defend” the Florida and U.S. constitutions means the issue needs an answer, the brief argues, and that state officials are “duty bound to uphold the eligibility requirements.”
Named as defendants are Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission.
The new case follows about a dozen others that already have been filed on similar grounds in other states. While most of the cases have been dismissed, some now are on appeal.