To Dream the Impossible Dream

Alan Keyes is right we NEED proof!!!

I found Keyes intelligent, well spoken and well informed. His comments were measured and reasonable. Given the facts, I think he has an excellent chance of getting to the bottom of the question.

As to your comments – well, you're a kool-aid drinking liberal. Nuff Said.

BTW, since you're so well informed, please tell us exactly how much Obama HAS spent over and above $12.50.

Thanks David Weigel for posting this video off of You Tube. I never would have found it otherwise. Also, since listening to Alan Keyes, I'm convinced now that Barack Obama is hiding something and that something is his ineligibility to be President.

Two things amaze me about this issue and Mr. Weigel is a perfect example. First, writers like Weigel put everyone wanting to insure our constitution is preserved and upheld are right wing radicals. That's their way of diverting the publics attention. I am a somewhat liberal democrat and have never voted for a republican untill this past election. There are many Americans like me who want to support Mr. Obama, but want him thoroughly vetted just like everyone else. He's no better, nor no worse.

Second, Mr. Weigel, and those of his ilk, never ever opine as to why Mr. Obama won't let us see his vault birth certificate, passport used to travel to Pakistan in 1981 and his college funding records. A logical and believeable explanation would satisfy many, yet it's never forthcoming. This shroud of secrecy is self promoting.

Also, it's not going away. If there are demonstrations over this, the blame lies directly at Obama's feet. He can end it all easily, but choices not to.

Response please, Mr. Weigel!

So why do you think Obama goes to so many courts to resist disclosing his full set of normal citizenship records?

Even a “laughable kook” may question a king.

The current SCOTUS threshold for a MUST STAY of BHO’s inauguration is not whether he is ultimately determined constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, merely whether there now is SERIOUS QUESTION on his constitutional eligibility, since any determination of inelligibility AFTER inauguration would pose unnecessary civil and military difficulties.

I love how anytime you post something about the O.B.C (Obama Birth Conspiracy), The comments section quickly fills with demands from constitutional scholars and experts. Let's face it guys, You are not experts or scholars. You are most likely cubicle bound idealogues who listen to way too much talk radio, read way too many right wing blogs and have way too much time on your hands. Just because you think your argument makes sense, doesn't mean that normal people will. Get back to work before you get fired.

Aired on YouTube and nowhere else, because the mainstream media won't sell advertising time in order that is be broadcast on the networks. What are they afraid of? My guess would be that the truth would come out and they would ALL have egg on their faces for not doing their jobs during the campaign. You loose credibility (not that you care) when you start with that sentence – you make it sound like your right wing nuts can't band together to get their issue told anywhere but YouTube. Quite the contrary – we can't get the Love Affair with Obama Media to take our money to air it.

And btw – I'm not a conspiracy theorist – I'm an American.

Weigel, your an idiot. Keyes said, “Obama has spent upward to $1 million dollars.” Not more than. It could be less. That is what upward means. Get your facts straight. Its obvious that you are an Obamabot and have no regard for our Constitution. Your article is “fact-less.” You are an embarrassment to journalism and have no balls to stand up to Obama. Don't forget Obama sabotaged the senate election in Illinois by digging into the people running against him to get them removed. That is how Obama won the election. Now that true Patriots just want to make sure Obama is eligible to be President, you want to judge them? I got news for you. Obama is not your Messiah. Your Messiah came over 2,000 years ago. Why is it that all Obama had to do was sign a statement of intent that he was born in America and that was the extent of the secretary of states making sure he was a natural born citizen? Why does he get to hide his college transcripts but other candidates turned theirs over when asked? Its apparent you do not care about the Constitution. I suggest you watch Reagan's farewell speech if you want to know what a real patriot of America is. Your not one of them.

Obama promised transparency. Here is a list of documents we are not allowed to see.
1) Birth Certificate
2) Occidental College records
3) Harvard records
4) Records of his 1980 trip to Pakistan (illegal for US citizens)
Does not even meet the smell test. He is now being compare to Lincoln on how he is putting his political rivals in his cabinet. Study Lincoln carefully and remember he set Tax policy to favor one group of Americans over another and raised an Army to attack his own people. Study your History and Constitution.

How do you real patriots of America deal with the fact that President-Elect Obama had to undergo a thorough background check in order to recieve Top-Secret clearance while he was a senator?

Your article is wrong, asswipe.

Having read your last few articles, I don't know how you hold on to your job. Instead of reviewing the information available or even investigating the citizenship issue, your ignorance on the subject make you appear as a lazy, sarcastic, Obama junkie. It is amazing that those that know zero on this issue, continually parrot others of the same ilk and incompetence. People that have investigated, read, and researched the issue are not conspiracy freaks. The conspiracy lies with Obama himself. At no other time has all information about a candidate been sealed from public view or from journalists. Articles written try to paint the constitutionalists as unthinking, whereas it is quite the opposite. We can understand your dilemma though in trying to research a candidate whose life has been erased, scrubbed, and sealed. The diligent people continue on with trying to locate documents that might shed light on the elected candidate.

To those that continue to use the statement that his birth certificate is posted on line and was checked out by Snopes and FactCheck, please compare the differences at the website below. See what a “real” birth certificate should look like and compare it to what the Obama camp produced : http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/obama/

A Natural Born citizen, he is not. The Law of Nations that was used as a reference to write the US Constitution stated it quite clearly. Book 1 Chpt. 19

§ 212. Citizens and natives. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ” § 215. “Children of citizens born in a foreign country. It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212) These clarifications were used by John Jay , First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when they were not afraid to stand up for the Constitution.

Easily understood that Obama's father was Kenyan, a British subject, and his mother American, therefore he is not a natural born citizen. He is a citizen, yes. But the president and vice president must be “natural born.”
McCain also did not qualify, although both parents were Americans, he was not born on US soil. Yes, he again is a citizen, just not a natural born citizen.

Obama called himself a native citizen, not a natural born citizen. He does know the difference since he taught consitutional law as a lecturer in Chicago. Going a step further, the natural born citizen question was raised repeatedly during the 1800's in newspapers. I found numerous articles on the subject that might educate you. If you want to prove your worth to readers, you might try presenting correct information instead of parroting it from others. But let me help your readers, as I assume they might like to know the real issues. From my own research, many articles were published in the Brooklyn Eagle. One that is pertinent was published on Dec. 16, 1894.

“The difference of opinion existing rests upon the meaning of “a natural born citizen.” On this subject, Paschal, regarded as one of the highest legal authorities, says, “A natural born citizen (is one) not made by law, or otherwise, but born.” Bates on “Citizenship” (10 op., 382) limits the “natural” member of the body politic to “the people born in the country,” and he repeats this, confining the meaning to “every person born in the country.” Kent says: Nativity furnishes the rule.” Story on “The Constitution,” says, “Considering the ages of all such (i.e., those who were alien born and citizens when the constitution was adopted), no person of foreign birth can now ever be President of the United States under this constitution.” Morse on “Citizenship” (page 125, section 90) says “A natural born citizen is one not made by law, or otherwise, but born. The constitution does not make the citizens; it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. The expression 'natural born citizen' recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations, and is as old as political society–that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.” Now, a citizen is, first, natural born. Children born within the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Second, made a citizen by statute. Children born of American parents outside of this jurisdiction are made citizens by statute (United States Revised Statutes, section 2,172) and are not citizens natural born. If there was no statute they would not be citizens.”

III. President, Natural Born Citizen Feb. 26, 1888 Brooklyn Eagle.

“An article entitled “Office of President,” and printed on the sixth page of to-day's EAGLE, will attract attention. The Constitution of the United States prescribes among other qualifications that the President shall be “a natural born citizen.” Is the child of a citizen born abroad while his father is temporarily absent from the country, say on diplomatic service, “a natural born citizen,” within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore eligible to that extent for the Presidency? The law makes such a person a citizen for ordinary purposes. He may vote and hold real estate. So may a man made a citizen by law in any other way, as by acts and proceedings of naturalization. The Constitution does not merely provide that “a Citizen” shall be eligible for President. He must be “a natural born” citizen.

Does this exclude citizens made by law, whether naturalized foreigners or children of citizens as to whom the statute declares that the accident of their birth outside of the country shall not deprive them of their common citizenship? Must the President have actually been born on our soil? Story, Kent, Paschal, Daniel Webster and Bates seem to incline to a strict construction of the Constitutional clause and to hold that nobody born on foreign soil, in any circumstances, is eligible to the Presidency.”

These birth issues were raised way before the election, but because of the incompetence of journalists and the media not understanding the issue, they all jumped on the same band wagon and spouted the same misinformation if they reported it at all. The birth certificate was just to confirm his allegiance. But if you understand the issue, Obama could never be a natural born citizen because his father was a British subject. He would also be disqualified if born somewhere other than on US soil. He states his own ineligibility right on his web site if we want to go by that information.

The fact that this has gone so far without being recognized is abominable. Our constitution should not be stomped on as it has been done by both parties. If Obama is sworn into office, he will be considered a Usurper. All appointments, documents, treaties, laws that he signs will be null and void as well as illegal. Nothing he says to the military would have to be obeyed either. This is a constitutional crisis, and our enemies have been reading about it. Several articles appeared in PRAVDA that explain the situation. The writer did a far better job of presenting the issues than anyone in the US.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/02-…

It also was not “verified” by the Hawaiian government. They said they had a birth certificate. Hawaii registered births from foreign countries at the time. It was never said he was born there. But as we know, it doesn't matter, his parentage makes him ineligible. So even if he was born in Hawaii (and he hasn't proven it) Obama could not be a Natural Born citizen because Natural Born citizens can not hold dual citizenship at birth.

The violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the US Constitution by Mr. Obama is an egregious, blatant, and audacious act. Those that you are calling conspiracy freaks will not abandon our 200 year old Constitution. We intend to stand for it. We are true patriots. Due diligence should have been done BEFORE the election, and now before the president-elect takes office. He is putting our country at risk by his actions.

A Constitutional Lawyer, Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., discussed the ramifications of Obama taking office if ineligible. “Here is a definitive explanation of the legal issues involved when a person who is not a natural born citizen – a poseur, a usurper, a fraud – stands for the office of President of the US.” http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

Is transparency just a word for others to use? If we don't stand for our Constitution, who will?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The requirements to become a Senator are FAR different from those to become POTUS. Mayby you should get yourself a copy of the Constitution and READ IT!

rambling, patronizing?

you mock what you do not understand. Like him or not Alan Keyes is brilliant and he brings up valid points. He is a patriot. God Bless him.

Some FACTS would give your argument FAR more credibility though the name calling is typical kool-aid liberal.

I agree with Mr. Weigel.

Keyes, as usual, rambles. He reminds me of a restaurant which tries to fill its customers up on appeitizers because it has no entrees.

Really though, there is NO conspiracy. This issue has been settled. Obama doesn't owe anyone anything other than to be a good president. So get over it, folks.

Look, when you sit there and critically think about this issue… Do you ever wonder why congressional republicans haven't challenge Obama's eligibility? Like They did with Mccain's canal zone birth… Could it be that they know that he has gone through the same screening they have? and that the screening requires verification of essential details, like citizenship, place of birth and so forth?
You see, they know he is a natural born citizen, and that is why there is no challenege from congress. Obama is qualified, and the sooner you accept it and get on with your life, the sooner we can all enjoy your ramblings about the illuminati and the north american union.

1. Nothing has been resolved, are you kidding me?
2. There is no conspiracy but there's a HUGE coverup and it's NOT going away. The quicker Obama realizes that, the better off everybody will be.

Not only is the $1,000,000 figure entirely fabricated, Keyes is totally wrong about the birth certificate. Hawaii now has one standard procedure to request birth records; it costs $10 not 12, and they respond with exactly the kind of certificate Obama showed.

When FactCheck asked to see Obama's birth certificate, the answer was: here it is. Anyone with Internet access can see nine high-resolution photos of it, showing it in great detail including serial number, signature, and embossed seal, at:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in…

You know your side is in trouble when your champion is Alan Keys. He's been losing for years, and seems to practice ever chance he gets. He managed to lose the 2008 Presidential election *three times*. He lost in the Republican primaries; he lost the Constitution Party nomination; then he formed his own party to lose in the general election.

There are now 20 or so lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility and they've racked up quite a record in court: they always lose. No surprise that Alan Keyes wants a piece of that action.

All the same, why can't Obama produce the vault long form certificate and put an end to speculation? He managed to uncover his opponent's divorce records – why cant BO deliver a birth certificate? Why does he want to revamp the constitution? Why did he support legislation to redefine a “natural born citizen” while in the Senate? It all stinks to high heaven….. Don't let your partisanship overwhelm your common sense…..

Alan Keyes is brilliant, and should be president.

The question is not IF there will be an interdiction of Obama’s Presidency by the Supreme Court, the questions are WHEN and HOW that interdiction will transpire — that is, if the USA is to continue as the Constitutional Republic that now exists.

Molotov Mitchell here. How dare you call Dr. Keyes a “kook” for wanting to uphold the Constitution. He's done more to protect our liberties than every Democrat in Washington combined. He's a true patriot and your mudslinging can't change his righteous record.

As for me, to be clear, I don't want violence. I was asking a relevant question, one that hovers in people's minds but few are willing to utter. At what point is force necessary to defend the foundation of our republic? By the way, what would YOUR answer be?

I know you have different views and I welcome a vigorous debate, but claiming that there's nothing there is either very naive or consciously corrupt. Questioning Obama's citizenship issue is anything but wild conjecture. He has given Americans every reason to be suspicious. Remember, he's the one who talked so much about bringing transparency to Washington, so we're demanding it. Unfortunately, it seems all his talk of transparency was just that…talk. And his evasive maneuvers will only guarantee that this issue will only spread in the years to come.

One thing is for sure, he is not my President.

I voted for Obama because reality is irrelevant.
Thanks for spreading the “conspiracy”…

Not only is Alan Keyes a wingnut loon kook, back during his 1992 Senatorial Campaign he liberally paid himself close to $100K out of his campaign funds, which most normal candidates would never do. And it took him until 1998 to pay off his debts. Whether he still owes money for his failed Presidential bid is debateable. And if Obama isn't your President – great – get the hell out of my country. I am 55 years old and love my country, as do the others who supported our President. Who needs a smart ass 29 year old like you – who thinks he has all the answers – bashing the POTUS. Love it or leave it baby – that's what we told your type in the 60s…you and Keyes, get out.

Not only is Alan Keyes a wingnut loon kook, back during his 1992 Senatorial Campaign he liberally paid himself close to $100K out of his campaign funds, which most normal candidates would never do. And it took him until 1998 to pay off his debts. Whether he still owes money for his failed Presidential bid is debateable. And if Obama isn't your President – great – get the hell out of my country. I am 55 years old and love my country, as do the others who supported our President. Who needs a smart ass 29 year old like you – who thinks he has all the answers – bashing the POTUS. Love it or leave it baby – that's what we told your type in the 60s…you and Keyes, get out.