You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Dr. Alan Keyes’ tag.

A lawyer threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for filing one of the myriad legal challenges to President Obama’s eligibility has responded by criticizing the judge for relying on “hearsay” blog information for his decision and suggesting he should be given a hearing that could include discovery of the president’s original birth certificate.

“This is not what Plaintiff Hollister’s concern is,” Hemenway wrote in a court-required response. “Plaintiff Hollister is a retired colonel, who is subject to recall. Plaintiff’s concern is how an order received from Soetoro/Obama is to be regarded. Would it be a legal order which he must obey or an illegal order which he must disobey?

“These are not frivolous matters, as the learned Judge Robertson has suggested. Possible illegal orders are a matter of great concern to officers in the armed forces. Undersigned counsel himself entered the Army of the United States during WWII and was promoted to Infantry Second Lieutenant preparing for the anticipated landings in Japan which were scheduled for November 1, 1945. But for President Truman’s use of nuclear weapons to end the war, this would have transpired. The legality of orders in and out of combat is of paramount importance,” he wrote.


Hemenway continued with a “second point” Robertson raised.

That is, he said, that “the president of the United States had been properly vetted.”

“This assumes facts not in evidence and was not addressed. It is clear that the constitutional qualifications of President Soetoro/Obama have not been properly vetted. Judge Robertson even cites an earlier case filed in Pennsylvania by one of the two lead attorneys in this case, in which the judge claimed candidates in the recent presidential election had never been more closely vetted. Nothing was further from the truth. Effectively, the Pennsylvania District Court judge was introducing his own hearsay and opinion into the case as if it were acceptable evidence,” Hemenway wrote.

It is sad to read this court’s use of material from the Internet to imply that the issues in the numerous lawsuits filed have been resolved by the ‘twittering and blogging’ to determine that the litigants are invoking ‘conspiracy theorists.’ It suggests that the intellectual capacity of this court focused on the issues in the instant suit at a very low level, perhaps for political purposes, such as to win attention from the highest authority when a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States becomes vacant,” Hemenway wrote.

Further, Hemenway wrote, Robertson is threatening him with sanctions for “the costs allegedly borne by the defendants when all that would be necessary to terminate this political chicanery (substitute ‘crisis’) that now has involved hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens would be for President Obama to display his actual birth certificate.”

Instead, ranks of attorneys have been hired to block “access to his records by sealing his college records, refusing access to his ‘vault’ birth certificate; and all other documents which would provide his citizenship status.”

Hemenway said, “Defendant Soetoro/Obama has never responded. Instead, a document [purporting] to be Soetoro/Obama’s birth certificate was placed on the Internet in sites including, but not limited to:, and

“This image so presented was later challenged by a forensic expert as a forged and/or altered document. … It is a widely recognized legal principle that, when a false or modified or counterfeit document is presented as the original, under discovery, the actual document must be presented,” he said.

“Moreover, this document is a Certification of Live Birth which is issued by the Hawaiian State Government when births abroad or births occurring outside of a hospital are registered with the Hawaii Department of Health. A proper birth certificate provides information as to where the child was born, weight, length, parent’s information, doctor information, etc. The Certification of Live Birth provided by Soetoro/Obama only shows he was born – somewhere,” he said.

In a commentary at, Margaret Calhoun Hemenway, a former White House appointee serving in the Department of Defense and at NASA, said that Obama “regularly referred to himself as ‘a constitutional law professor.'”

“Mr. Obama’s professed respect for the Constitution doesn’t seem to include its clear-cut qualifications for president in Article 2, Section 1, which directly impacts upon whether he is entitled to hold the current political position to which the voters entrusted him,” she wrote.

“Sadly, the American people depend upon a vetting process for national candidates which evidently is, truly and astonishingly, non-existent. Instead of actual verification of genuine documents to determine citizenship by some impartial board or committee, the vetting process appears to have become subjugated in the case of Mr. Obama to competing campaigns or partisan websites, a flawed Internet phenomenon which Judge Robertson referenced as Twittering and blogging, and online postings of suspect copies of documents, which should never have been a substitute for the judge’s constitutional duty to examine evidence and rule on facts, bolstered by legal and forensic experts, not opinions from the blogosphere.”

John Hemenway also said the judge’s description of Berg and an associate as “agents provocateurs” was “prejudicial.”

The legitimate questions about Obama’s birth certificate are just too many to ignore, he continued.

“It should also be noted, Soetoro/Obama’s sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng was born in Indonesia and today is classifiable as a ‘naturalized citizen.’ However, her birth was registered in Hawaii and she, too, maintains a Certification of Live Birth,” he wrote.

“Plaintiff submitted Barry Soetoro’s (a/k/a Barack H. Obama’s) Indonesian school record showing Soetoro/Obama’s citizenship status as ‘Indonesian,’ his name as ‘Barry Soetoro,’ etc. Soetoro/Obama has admitted to attending the Indonesian public Schools. … Furthermore … Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s, and any time a child was registered for a public school, the child’s name and citizenship status were verified through the Indonesian government,” Hemenway said.

It is not helpful for a United States district judge to endorse obfuscation when a constitutional issue is involved. Under these circumstances, to threaten sanctions against an attorney who, in good faith assisted in the filing of a lawsuit involving issues none of the many judges and attorneys from coast to coast have found ‘frivolous’ is to employ the Rule 11 as a device to deprive the undersigned attorney of his civil rights and the right to due process. Without even a hearing or access to discovery being granted to defend against the charges, such a sanction would be a veritable lynching,” Hemenway challenged.

“If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past,” he said.

The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery,” Hemenway said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “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 of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, 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. Further complicating the issue are the reports he was adopted by an Indonesia man during his childhood and moved to Indonesia and attended school there. There also are questions on what nation’s passport he traveled to Pakistan.

Lawyers and plaintiffs in a multitude of lawsuits also have asked why, if a birth certificate actually reflects that Obama was born in Hawaii, has he spent sums estimated by observers of up to $1 million hiring various law firms to keep concealed his birth certificate, his college records and other documentation.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, told WND a demand for verification of Obama’s eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that “he does not want the public to know.”

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are “garbage,” here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:

  • New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
  • Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
  • Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
  • Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
  • Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.
  • Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
  • Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
  • In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
  • Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
  • In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
  • In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
  • California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

WND reported earlier when Judge James Robertson dismissed a lawsuit filed by John D. Hemenway on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired military officer who is subject to being recalled to duty and therefore would need to know the legitimacy of any order coming from Obama.

In his statement dismissing the case, Robertson ridiculed the complaint, which never had a court hearing, ruling that the eligibility issues had been “blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged.”

Hollister is represented by Philadelphia lawyer Philip Berg, who has brought several motions on the eligibility dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court that have been ignored. Hemenway acted as local counsel in filing the action on behalf of Hollister.

Robertson wrote: “The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel’s satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

“The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court,” Robertson wrote.

Wrong on most counts, Hemenway contends.

After seeing this video, Keith Olbermann verbally attacked Dr. Alan Keyes, a man of far greater intelligence and integrity, even more patriotic than Keith Olbermann:

Tuesday, January 27, 2009




Proud of Obama?

Unless they accept the degrading premise of racism (that physical traits alone are a valid basis for identifying human communities), I cannot understand why people would assume that I should take pride in the election of Barak Obama simply because we both have dark skin. Because he takes the position that it’s right to slaughter innocent human beings by abortion, I believe he represents the antithesis of decent conscience. Like the southern slaveholders in the nineteenth century, he accepts the view that a human being’s most basic rights may be disregarded simply because another human being considers his physical characteristics or stage of human development inferior. Of course people like Obama aim at a more violently immoral result than the southern slaveholders. Whether from moral sentiment or selfish interest, the advocates of slavery supported a system that at the very least regarded the death of a slave as a regrettable, though sometimes necessary, waste of capital Those who support the abortion industry work to perpetuate a system that builds capital by wasting the lives of innocent human beings in the uttermost condition of helplessness.

People who wrote handbooks on slave husbandry actually gave advice to slaveholders about keeping the slaves healthy and strong for work. The abortion industry thrives on the development of more convenient and reliable methods of extermination. Its advocates fight hard to make sure potential clients are not exposed to any information that might interfere with the decision to devote new victims to the slaughter.

Slaveholders had to develop all manner of human relationships with their slaves, some of which involved genuine emotional attachment on both sides. The abortion industry depends on the denial of the emotional bond that is the paradigm of loving human relations, that between a mother and her child; and it implies the denial and irrelevance of the scarcely less fundamental tie that ought to bind a father to his offspring.

People pretend to scoff and take umbrage at anyone who dares to mention Obama and Hitler in the same breath. Yet the “good liberals” who staff the surgical killing fields that masquerade as medical facilities suppress the personhood of innocents in the womb with the same officious ruthlessness that characterized the “good Germans” who suppressed the humanity of the Jews, gypsies and other groups they regarded as inferior and consigned to the death camps. And the “choice” honored by pro-abortion slogans has about as much to do with freedom as the “work” honored by the slogan that reigned over Auschwitz and Buchenwald, “Arbeit Macht Frei.”

Far from any feeling of pride, I can feel only shame at the thought that someone now occupies the White House who in his rise to power consolidated the dedication of his most hard core devotees by boldly defending the murder of newborn children who survive intended slaughter, on the grounds that respecting their indisputable right to life would somehow interfere with their mothers’ “right” to the dead, dismembered little carcass they pay the abortionist to deliver.

Far from any feeling of pride, I feel only revulsion, and I cringe at the thought that anyone would identify me with a man who promotes evil more hard hearted and spiritually corrupting than that which claimed the liberty and blighted the lives of my forbears. I know that God forgives those who repent of the sin of abortion, even as he takes to his bosom the intended victims of their mistake. But as for those who defend the sin; who lure others into believing it has the sanction of right; who make the piled remains of tiny human beings the landfill on which to construct their edifice of profit and political power; as for these workers of iniquity I know that Christ rejects them (“…depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.” Luke 13:37) and for them our father God reserves only annihilation, (“…destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.” Proverbs 21:15)

Yet I also feel terrible grief at the sight of so many who rejoice in the triumph of evil that Obama represents because they have been deceived and manipulated into believing that he somehow represents a vindication of all the years of suffering, sorrow and outcast oppression experienced by Americans whose heritage includes the bitter reality of slavery, abuse and unjust discrimination. How can the generations beaten, hounded and murdered on account of the rejection of God ordained human equality be vindicated by the elevation to power of a man who champions that rejection, not just for one group or another, but for all human beings too young and inarticulate to defend themselves? How can the generations denied opportunity and a just recompense for their talent and labor be vindicated by the adulation given to a man who promotes as lawful, and would impose by law, the ultimate denial of opportunity and all justice to the posterity which represents the renewal of mankind’s hope in this and every generation?

As the children of those generations of bondage and tears lift up this golden calf of pride for the world’s applause they reject, like the children of Israel, the will and heart of the very God of Justice who made provision for their deliverance from floggings and unrequited toil, from contumely and searing humiliation. I grieve because I fear that like the Israelites of old, this generation prepares for itself a trial of renewed oppression, a place by the rivers of Babylon where they will learn again from hardship to seek the mercy of God by the only path that finds him- the path marked out by the true Messiah who best exemplified respect for his righteousness and obedience to his will. His is the heart from which we know the truth their new, false prophet of unity and hope cast down by the wayside in his rise to notoriety: real love and hope would rather lose all to preserve respect for God’s true gift of life than preside, by its destruction, over a nation departed from his knowledge and headed for calamity.

“For the LORD knows the way of the just: but the way of the unjust shall perish.” (Psalms 1:6)

From the blog site of Dr. Orly Taitz:

How much is Obama paying to defend his ineligibility?

I was asked this question. How much is Obama paying to defend his ineligibility? Let’s see. I saw in Justia 48 legal actions in Federal courts alone. In state courts there are probably many more cases, since people are more at ease filing in their local state circuit courts pro se. In my Keyes v Bowen case there are 4 attorneys representing Obama, 4 representing SOS Bowen and one representing electors-9 in all. There are two issues here:
1. of course he is spending a fortune. His CA attorneys are Beverly Hills firm (unless it’s just a front) and DC Robert Bauer that has been around the block time and again. My guess they are charging $600 an hour. You do the math.
2. The States are spending a fortune. They are wasting our taxpayer’s dollars to defend indefensible. I believe in each one of those cases the judges should’ve issued a Writ of Mandamus to obtain necessary eligibility documentation from a legitimate source, like the Health Dep of HI and State Dep., instead of allowing Robert Bauer and Obama a free ride claiming political blog garbage as a reputable source. Why aren’t the judges sanctioning them for even claiming that this stupid political unverified blog is a reputable source? Additionally, why are they allowing such a waste of taxpayer dollars, instead of getting the docs within an hour and getting over with it? What are they waiting for? For people’s anger to reach the boiling point and a revolt to start? Is that the end game? I really don’t know…

     The positions stated by Dr. Keyes are hard to rebut:

     Our President-elect, Barack H. Obama, has resigned his seat in the United States Senate less than two weeks after his election, the earliest any President-elect has done such an action. In the two weeks since his election, Obama has maintained a somewhat low profile, except for a 60 Minutes interview, a trip to the White House to check out the new “digs”, and meetings to set up his Administration. He even took the future First Lady to dinner at their favorite Italian restaurant in Chicago for a three hour quiet dinner. And all of this while the number of lawsuits and challenges to his eligibility to be elected the President continue to mount.

     Dr. Alan Keyes has become a party to a California lawsuit seeking to have the Secretary of State require verification of Obama’s birth records. Philip Berg’s case is pending an answer from the Obama lawyers before the U.S. Supreme Court. There are lawsuits pending against several other Secretary of States with similar issues as expressed in Dr. Keyes’ complaint.

     In the Washington Times Weekly, a full page ad ran in the November 17th edition that hit the streets this weekend:


     The answer to all of this seems so simple: Barack Obama should simply release the verifiable original document that the State of Hawaii recently acknowledged that they had on file. The time, the moment, is now, to put this matter to rest. There are far too many issues facing this Nation to have the air of uncertainty about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility remain as we move forward. Yes, 52% of the electorate voted for Obama, but if he cannot meet the Constitutional requirements, he cannot be permitted to take the Oath of Office– the oath that says he will “uphold the Constitution”.