Obama’s latest excuse against probing eligibility: “I’m not the nominee of the Democratic Party”


Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist

Ordinarily I would not use the term “Democratic Party,” as what this party is has no relationship to the Democrats of old.  Now it’s run by progressive/socialists who have no clue that the United States is not just a Democracy but a Republic.

Think of the lamb as being the “Evil Rich” or crying about “Race,” as Democrats have nothing to offer.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m

WND

by Joseph Farah

What’s Barack Obama’s latest legal excuse against probing his eligibility to serve as president?

He’s not the nominee of the Democratic Party.

That’s what his attorneys argued in a hearing today, which you can view in its entirety exclusively on WND-TV.

In yet another court hearing on this subject – one of dozens that have been brought since he took office – Obama attorney Mark Herron sought to get a Florida lawsuit summarily dismissed that aims at blocking his client from the state ballot without producing proof of constitutional eligibility. The hearing took place before Judge Terry Lewis in Florida, best-known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute.

Attorney Larry Klayman filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself in the complaint as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County.”

More Below

Herron argued the Florida process affirms only that Obama is the choice in the state’s presidential preference primary but is not necessarily the party’s nominee for president.

“This language clearly indicates the winner of the president preference primary, not the nominee of the party,” he said.

But the judge noted that the party wrote to Florida’s secretary of state a letter indicating Obama’s name was the only one submitted, and he thought the state’s electors were bound to vote for him.

“Wasn’t there a letter [that said] this is the only candidate whose name will appear?” Lewis asked.

Obama’s attorneys said such a decision “has not been triggered yet.”

Klayman argued that according to state law, when only one name is submitted, that person automatically becomes the nominee, even if the national Democratic Party nominating convention has not been held.

No decision was announced immediately. The judge said he would review the law and asked for suggested orders from both sides to be delivered to him by Monday.

At least the hearing provided an opportunity for Klayman to argue the eligibility case in a public setting – something Obama’s attorneys, the media and the political establishment seem determined to prevent at all costs.

Klayman accused the Obama attorneys of playing a “shell game” and trying to put off the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.

Klayman told WND that, during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.

And that’s been the problem from the beginning. No one seems willing to look at the facts of whether someone currently occupying the White House is constitutionally fit. The Obama team prefers to argue on technical grounds.

Why?

If Obama can simply provide his eligibility beyond any reasonable doubt, why not just do so after all this time?

The reason, I venture to say, is he can’t.

And the media and political establishment have aided this stonewalling every step of the way – by ridiculing as “birthers” all those who seek that proof.

When public pressure reached a crescendo last April, as Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” book rose to No. 1 on the charts, Obama quickly released what he claimed was his long-form birth certificate – a document even the governor of Hawaii, and a close friend and political ally of Obama, claimed he couldn’t find anywhere in the state.

The media immediately accepted the document at face value. Later, dozens of graphic experts testified and swore under oath the document was fraudulent. Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona conducted an investigation that came to the same conclusion. Still, the media remained curiously incurious.

I don’t know how the Florida case will turn out, but be assured WND will be there to cover it again – even if no other media are interested.

About these ads

7 responses to “Obama’s latest excuse against probing eligibility: “I’m not the nominee of the Democratic Party”

  1. This is so rediculous that it’s funny!

  2. Ridiculous yes but why would his lawyer say that. I am not getting the stragedy here.

  3. The obvious answer is, NO, he is not eligible, never has been and never will be!

  4. I suspect he’s planning some sort of coup d’ etat. As to his own Party, they’r afraid of him and would (especially their members on Congress, with which he has seldom spoken) rather see Hillary get the nomination. One thing is for dertain – he WILL kill anybody who stands in the way between him and his continuing in power. He’s already emerged as a dictator, ruling by decree.

  5. 1) The long form birth certificate that Obama released through the White House web site has proven to be a forgery by 99% of the experts who examined it!!
    2) Sheriff Arpaio has proven that Obama’s long form birth certificate as well as Obama’s selective service card are all forgeries!!!
    3) Obama’s Connecticut social security number that Obama uses is fraudulent, as it belongs to a deceased person!
    4) Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” as he should be in order to be President of the USA, as BOTH of his parents were NOT American citizens at the time of his birth (his father was Kenyan).

  6. If the law in Florida is that you do not have to prove eligibility in a primary election, which is what both the state of Florida and Obama’s attorney have said, then you do not have to prove eligibility in a primary election.

    Re: “1) The long form birth certificate that Obama released through the White House web site has proven to be a forgery by 99% of the experts who examined it!!”

    Crap. The reason Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the National Review do not believe the birther “experts” is that they have not really proven that they are experts, and none of them has shown that she or his impartial. Thus they claim what they desire to be the situation. But no official has confirmed their claims, not one. And other experts, in particular John Woodman, a member of the Tea Party who dislikes Obama’s polices, has shown that the birther claims about the birth certificate being forged are laughable.

    Re: “2) Sheriff Arpaio has proven that Obama’s long form birth certificate as well as Obama’s selective service card are all forgeries!!!

    Answer. Again crap. Even the secretary of state of Arizona does not believe that crap.

    Re: “3) Obama’s Connecticut social security number that Obama uses is fraudulent, as it belongs to a deceased person!”

    Answer. Millions of people have errors in their social security files and millions have multiple social security numbers. The SS number you refer to was caused by one of those errors.

    Re: “Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” as he should be in order to be President of the USA, as BOTH of his parents were NOT American citizens at the time of his birth (his father was Kenyan).”

    Answer: Yes his father was indeed Kenyan. But since the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, and Obama was born in the USA, in Hawaii, the citizenship of Obama’s father does not matter.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s