US Secret Service looks at alleged coup plotters: “Birthers’ Queen Bee” could lose law license
Anybody who has been paying attention by now knows that “Birtherism” is a conspiracy theory constructed by Democrats and 9-11 troothers in order to disorient opponents of President Obama. Its purpose is to boost Democrat reelection chances by portraying conservatives as conspiracy nuts. The Democrat media is now turning up the volume on Birther-related “news” items in order to distract from the fight over “Obamacare” on Capitol Hill.
Conservative leaders including Ann Coulter, Michael Medved, Joe Scarborough, David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrisey of Hot Air and others have denounced the conspiracists. Medved calls them “nutburgers”.
But “Birtherism” is more than a wacky conspiracy theory. Dentist/lawyer Orly Taitz, dubbed the Birther “Queen Bee”, is facing a disbarment complaint filed anonymously in California–the only state in which she is admitted to the Bar. The first paragraph of the complaint reads as follows:
“A California attorney has decided that President Obama is ineligible to be President, and has taken on the mission of removing him from office – by force if necessary. On at least two occasions, she has openly called for armed rebellion by the military, to arrest and imprison the elected President.”
When this writer challenged Taitz on this during a June 21 radio debate, she said “Any crazy person can write anything and file it.” And she should know.
In Taitz’ latest version of the ”birther” scheme, in early July she recruited Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook of Georgia to claim that he could not ascertain that his orders to deploy to Afghanistan were legal because he cannot determine that Obama is legally President of the United States. Although the suit does not directly seek to unseat the President, it does seek to create a legal justification for military officers to disobey orders from the Commander in Chief.
On one of her websites, the now-defunct www.DefendOurFreedoms.us March 7, 2009 Taitz wrote:
“…I am skeptical of our judiciary…I believe that it ultimately will be up to our military to arrest and prosecute the Usurper in Chief for massive fraud of American citizens and treason.”
Military personnel foolish enough to associate themselves with Taitz destroy their careers and even risk the stockade. Carl Swensson, head of Taitz’ phony and powerless “Georgia citizens’ grand jury” was on May 26 visited by the Secret Service. The lifelong racist who recently murdered a security guard in an armed assault on the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, was amongst other things, a Bush-hating 9-11 “truther” and a “birther.”
The Secret Service visit to Swensson came after he signed a phony “indictment” demanding removal of Obama stating:
“If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury. The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury.”
Taitz on January 17, 2009 wrote:
“I hope that the men in this country, particularly in our military will finally revolt against this travesty of justice. If our government and our elected officials and our judiciary have failed us, then it is time for the new government, new, elected officials and a new judiciary.”
These insurrection-minded “birthers” claim to be upholding the US Constitution but the Constitution is crystal clear. Sitting Presidents can be removed only by the impeachment process. Article I Section 2 explains: “The House of Representatives shall … have the sole power of impeachment.” Article I Section 3 explains: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”
No court in the land has any authority to hear any case challenging the legitimacy of a sitting President. This is why Court after Court has thrown out Taitz’ suits seeking “injunctions” to unseat the President. What part of “sole authority” does Taitz not understand?
As editor of www.HawaiiFreePress.com , this writer has been researching Barack Obama since 2006. Earlier this year, I wrote the story of Obama’s Honolulu Unitarian Church hosting military deserters. Last June while I was digging out details of Obama’s 1970s Honolulu mentorship by Communist Party member and porno writer Frank Marshall Davis, the Washington Post June 28, 2008 smeared me with an article falsely claiming I was responsible for the idiotic “Obama-is-a-Muslim” chain emails.
For my work on convicted felon Tony Rezko’s ties to Obama I received threatening letters and phone calls from English libel lawyers of the firm Carter-Ruck representing Tony Rezko’s Iraqi ex-Baathist financier Nadhmi Auchi. I am now protected against Carter-Ruck and “Islamist Lawfare” by a team of attorneys from The Legal Project of the Middle East Foundation.
During all of this time, many of the “birthers” who now command so much attention were busy giving money to Democrats, working for Hillary Clinton, and/or peddling 9-11 conspiracy theories. Now they claim to offer the hope of removing Obama. This is false: it is also a trap for Obama’s opponents.
Obama was born in Hawaii. Claims that the State of Hawaii provides birth certificates indicating Hawaii birth to foreign-born persons are false. When this writer debated the Soviet-born Taitz on the Ben Barrack Show (Texas KTEM-AM) June 21, Taitz backed off months of her own lies to proclaim that “The birth certificate is not the main issue.” She instead claims Obama’s Kenyan father’s British citizenship renders Obama ineligible for the Presidency.
This is also false. Under the US constitution, 14th Amendment, anybody born in the US is automatically a US citizen and therefore a “natural-born citizen.” Taitz strays into politically poisonous and legally false territory — basing her arguments on overturned pre-Civil War jurisprudence. Prior to Republicans forcing adoption of the 14th Amendment some persons born in the US –slaves– were not considered US Citizens. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out how Obama would benefit from having an opposition focused on Taitz’ Confederate-Democrat argument.
The birthers claim that Obama’s eligibility was not checked. This is false. His eligibility was determined at four stages in the electoral process.
- First — the election officials of the 50 states determined that Obama was eligible to appear on the ballot.
- Second — voters deemed Obama eligible in the court of public opinion.
- Third — the Electoral College deemed Obama eligible when they voted to elect him.
- Fourth — the US Congress deemed Obama eligible when they voted to accept the results of the Electoral College vote.
The Founders wisely made this determination of eligibility a diffuse process. Birther demands to create an “authoritative body” or require that the Federal Campaign Commission rule on eligibility create the danger of a “council of experts” determining who may and may not run for President of the United States. That system doesn’t work very well in Iran.
Election officials in many states are doing their job. Roger Calero, the 2008 Socialist Workers Party candidate for President was born in Nicaragua. He did not meet the natural born requirement of the US Constitution. Because of that, half of the states in which he applied for ballot status refused to place him on the ballot. Clearly at least some of the states’ election officials are enforcing the constitutional requirements.
Georgia was one of the states which refused Calero. His party was required to submit the name of James Harris, a natural-born US Citizen who appeared as the Socialist Workers’ candidate on the Georgia ballot last November. The Georgia election authorities and those of 49 other states all accepted the eligibility of Obama.
Contrary to “birther” lies, the Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is a legal document of the State of Hawaii and is accepted for all identification purposes including applications for a passport, driver license, or security clearance. At the bottom of Obama’s COLB is the following statement: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
There is nothing unusual about Obama’s COLB posted online. It clearly states that Obama was born in Honolulu August 4, 1961 at 7:24PM. Although Hawaii officials are prohibited from releasing Obama’s original birth certificate without Obama’s authorization, the Department of Health appointees of Hawaii’s Republican Governor Linda Lingle state that they have viewed the original and that the online document provided by the State of Hawaii is true and accurate.
Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center, Hawaii’s major maternity hospital and most likely delivered by Honolulu obstetrician Dr Rodney T West. In addition to the birth certificate entered four days after Obama’s birth, an announcement of Obama’s birth was printed in the August 13, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser and in the Honolulu Star Bulletin.
Those who claim it was forged cannot explain why a Republican Governor would become a co-conspirator of the forgers. They also cannot explain why two starving students would fly from Honolulu to Mombasa, give birth in a substandard third-world hospital, and then fly back to Honolulu. In 1961 there were no direct flights. It would have been an expensive, pointless, and time-consuming multi-day, multi-stop journey. How would these two college students in 1961 manage to enter a false birth certificate in the State of Hawaii—then governed by Republican William Quinn–and enter false birth announcements in the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin—which printed such announcements solely from a list provided by the State Department of Health.
One question “birthers” always ask: “If Obama has nothing to hide, why doesn’t he just produce the long form birth certificate and be done with it.”
There are two answers to this question.
First: It is not in Obama’s interest to produce the long form because almost all of those who buy into the birther scam are people who would oppose Obama for other reasons.
Obama can choose what type of political opponent he wishes to face. He has the opportunity to help foment an opposition focused on tin-foil-hat birther nonsense which does nothing to create an electoral alternative for Americans upset about the deteriorating economy.
Obamabot commentators have called this analysis “a thunderously obtuse conspiracy theory”–a sure sign it hits home. No “conspiracy” is required for Obama and his political team to decide that it is politically advantageous to help make some of his opponents into tin-foil-hat idiots. It is a simple and obvious political calculation which has already paid dividends in Obama’s ability to beat back questions about his numerous leftist and corrupt associations by portraying such questions as “fringe conspiracy talk.” Few realize how effectively this particular method was applied to the national media. None of the “birthers” followers understand it.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs May 27 chose to allow himself to be asked about the birth certificate by World Net Daily’s Lester Kinsolving. Gibbs responded, “I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the State of Hawaii of the president’s birth there, but it’s on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we’ll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy.”
Gibbs is no fool. That’s 400,000 people who are worse than useless as opponents of Obama and another three and a half years for the “birthers” to round up more.
Gibbs again chose to address the “Birther” issue July 28 as Obama’s legislative agenda appeared to be heading for defeat. This was timed with efforts by CNN US President Jon Klein to create the latest “Birther” lie– that Hawaii has destroyed all paper birth records. One Liberal blogger wandered Capitol Hill trying to sucker GOP Congressmen into making “Birthy” statements which can be used against them in 2010.
Why would Obama want to make his “long-form” public and disabuse those who have been conned by the “birthers” of their stupidity? Were Obama to do this, at least some of the “birthers” victims would shift their opposition to real issues which matter to voters such as socialized health care, nationalization of auto companies, the carbon tax, and the unemployment, debt and economic destruction wrought by Obama’s tax and spend schemes.
What possible reason could Obama ever have to make his opponents more effective? Saul Alinsky explains: “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” This lesson Obama has learned well. When will the “birthers” learn that they are just fools for Obama?
Second: Obama cannot answer the charges in any court because to do so would give the courts authority to rule on the eligibility of a sitting President. This would greatly undermine the power of the President—which Obama cares about very deeply. This is why Obama spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the “birther” lawsuits.
Many of the “birther” leaders are professional conspiracists—and Democrats.
Attorney Phil Berg, a “birther” rival of Taitz, is a former 9-11 “truther”. Berg is also a former Democratic-appointed Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Berg spent 2004 through 2007 pushing his mis-named website 911fortheTruth.com and trying to let al-Qaeda off the hook by peddling claims in al-Jazeera interviews that Bush and Cheney carried out the 9-11 attacks or allowed them to occur. Berg filed bogus lawsuits against President Bush and called on foreign authorities to arrest the sitting US President for so-called “war crimes”. Sound familiar?
Taitz is a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee donor. Ironically while she pretends her court cases could unseat the president, her June 30, 2006, $1000 donation is hard at work keeping a Democratic majority in the US Senate—the only body with the power to unseat Obama. Taitz’ website is home to numerous articles by anti-Semite and 9-11 “truther” Devvy Kidd. Others peddling the “birther” scam include Ron Paul’s favorite 9-11”truther”–conspiracy entrepreneur Alex Jones, and Bush-bashing anti-Semite Andy Martin of Chicago.
When this writer debated Taitz she based her claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen largely on laws and legal opinions pre-dating adoption of the 14th Amendment—among them the infamous 1857 “Dred Scott Decision”—which required that escaped slaves must be returned to their so-called owners by the authorities in free states.
Obama was put in office by hordes of obsessed fans consumed with the idea of “making history” by electing America’s first black President. That job is done and many of the Obama voters’ obsessive impetus is gone. Many who willfully overlooked the flaws in their candidate are now confronted with the economic disaster his administration has wrought.
For 2012 Obama’s political team must rekindle their obsession. If Obama can portray his opposition as a bunch of neo-Confederate racists outraged because a black man has taken the Presidency — and conspiring to foment a military coup d’état — reelection becomes more likely.
As Obama’s poll numbers decline, the “birthers” become more and more important to him as a foil.
Andrew Walden edits www.HawaiiFreePress.com
| More from Andrew Walden
Stumble It!
July 29th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I don’t trust ANY politician and almost no one in the media. I still want two answers.
1) Why can’t we see his long-form? Obama knows that millions of citizens want to see it yet he continues to hide it. What/why is he hiding?
and most disturbingly,
2) Why don’t BHO’s supporters want to know the whole truth, especially since there’s a reward of $100,000 for proof that Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States.
OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!
Please read this:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13205
July 29th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
So… If we can’t ask about Obama’s birth certificate without being dismissed as nutjob, tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists, can we ask other questions about him without being maligned solely through the use of childish name calling, silly syllogism and sorry sophistry??
Conspiracy theories, tinfoil hats, mental illness and even racism are not a requirement for asking such questions. In fact, such accusations against innocent Americans who are simply asking questions of their leadership tell us something about American discourse and freedom that should send shivers down your spines.
Public statements, no matter how credible the witness, are not a birth certificate. A COLB is not an original document.
it’s really a simple question and the burden of proof is not on those who ask it. In a Constitutional Republic, the burden of proof is quite the other way around.
Where is the original document?
July 30th, 2009 at 4:54 am
You couldn’t be more wrong about the 14th amendment granting NBC status.
Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
THE MINOR HOLDING CASE WAS RULED ON BY SCOTUS IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
For more complete information, I’d recommend reading Leo Donofrio’s blog here -> http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-guilty-on-at-least-two-counts-of-false-swearing/
July 30th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Obama’s Eligibility to be President
Use of the term “birthers” to describe those who doubt and challenge Obama’s eligibility mimics a common childhood tactic: calling your opponent names to win an argument in the absence of facts. The facts: 1) Obama’s true long form birth certificate has not been provided for examination; 2) the DNC during the election campaign posted on its website an image of a computer-generated Hawaii certificate of live birth – which proves nothing even if it were authentic, and it has been exposed by experts as fraudulent; 3) transcripts and official records from his college days (which could shed light on whether he was registered as a U.S citizen) have never been released; 4) several lawsuits have been filed to obtain his records; some cases have made it to the U.S. Supreme Court; others have been dismissed for plaintiff “lack of standing”.
Framers of the U.S. Constitution, to insure loyalty, required Presidents to be natural born citizens. Laws in effect at Obama’s birth in 1961 specified that if a child was not born in the U.S. or its territories, at least one parent had to be an American citizen for five years after turning 14; Obama’s mother was 18 at his birth, too young to confer his citizenship. Obama in his book states that he was born in Hawaii (a U.S. Territory in 1961), yet there is ample evidence that he was not – evidence that he was born in Kenya.
Critics of “birthers” ridicule the movement as conspiracy theories. One should ask, instead, about whether there is a conspiracy among Obama’s administration, his adoring media, and politically correct politicians and judges, to stonewall the public by sitting on the story and reporting nothing about it. Until very recently the silence has been deafening!
Why won’t Obama just release his true long form birth certificate and his college records for examination – so we can all see that this has just been a silly misunderstanding? Isn’t that what a legitimate candidate and U.S. President would do?
The problem with not releasing these documents is that Obama is seen by growing numbers of Americans as hiding evidence that he is not Constitutionally eligible to be President. This feeling progresses to doubts that anything Obama says is true. Doubts are increasing about his loyalty to the U.S., based on his statements to, and treatment of our adversaries versus our traditional allies, and his apparent trashing of our Constitution and turning our system away from market-driven to socialism.
Enough talk about “birthers”! Let’s see Obama’s true long form birth certificate (if it exists) and his college transcripts. Obama, pick up your phone and make that happen.
July 30th, 2009 at 11:57 am
RE: “The birthers claim that Obama’s eligibility was not checked. This is false. His eligibility was determined at four stages in the electoral process.
First — the election officials of the 50 states determined that Obama was eligible to appear on the ballot. ”
THE STATES TOOK HIS OWN STATEMENT THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE. THAT WAS THE EXTEND OF THEIR VETTING. A CA COURT RULED THAT THE STATE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR VETTING.
RE : “Second — voters deemed Obama eligible in the court of public opinion. ”
PUBLIC OPINION VETTING ? WHAT IS THE LEGAL FOUNDATION OF THIS? SO IF THE GALLUP POLL SAYS THAT THE MAJORITY OF CITIZENS THINK THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE THAN HE IS?
RE: “Third — the Electoral College deemed Obama eligible when they voted to elect him. ”
EC NEVER VETTED HIM – BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE. SOME ELECTORS FILED LAWSUITS TO ENFORCE VETTING THESE SUITS WERE NEVER RULED ON MERIT .
RE : “Fourth — the US Congress deemed Obama eligible when they voted to accept the results of the Electoral College vote. ”
CONGRESS NEVER VETTED HIM – BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE. THERE WAS NO PROCESS OF VETTING IN CONGRESS.
July 31st, 2009 at 3:22 am
The author said:
“Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center, ”
So, why in Obama’s book, Audacity of Hope, does he say he was born in Queen’s Medical Center in Hawaii? Why the discrepancy?
HAS THIS JOURNALIST DONE ANY RESEARCH??
Perhaps evaluate the Quo warranto legal process too – since impeachment is the only way to remove a sitting president but does not apply if he is ineligible.
Regarding vetting – you say he was vetted at 4 stages – perhaps provide details of these alleged vetting processes. I don’t think you can, because there wasn’t one.
Oh, and btw, WHERE he was born, is a distraction from the real issue. Doesnt matter if born in hawaii, on the white house lawn, or in kenya, china or anywhere else for that matter. to be eligible he must be a “Natural Born Citizen”, and to qualify as an NBC BOTH his parents had to be citizens when he was born. Accrording to our friend Barry, his Dad was a british citizen…
July 31st, 2009 at 9:04 am
To “John” re: Each State evaluating eligibility.
This is untrue. During the campaign I personally wrote to the California Secretary of State to ask about their policy. Their reply was that it was not their responsibility; it was the responsibility of the Democratic party. Should I trust the Dems with the obvious self interest? I think not!
OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!