Impeach Obama Anyway (or will Larkin sue Obama?)

By rng
April 27, 2011

Obama has released his birth certificate.  If it turns out to be genuine, it makes no difference.  He should be impeached anyway for taking so long to release it.  Why?  A man, Lt. Col. Terry Larkin ruined his army career and went to military prison for demanding to see a document (long form birth certificate) Obama was legally required (see article below from Wikipedia) to provide.  What Obama did was criminal and deserves to be treated as such, and we can only hope Larkin will bring a civil suit for damages against Obama and all his aiders and abettors.  At any rate, Obama should be impeached for the high crime of withholding evidence from a defendant in a criminal case, evidence that would have led Larkin to not commit his so called "crime," of demanding that Obama meet his burden of proof of eligibility, and for the high misdemeanor of leaving the public in doubt over a legitimate constitutional issue.

From Wikipedia

In law, spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.^[1] Spoliation has two consequences: the act is criminal by statute and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; also, case law has established that proceedings that might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference.

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.^[2]

^{to read complete article}

The following is from CRS Report for Congress.  For the complete article click on the bold face heading.  The point is that "use of deception...to prevent the production of evidence...destruction of concealment of evidence or attempts to do so..." are federal crimes of which Obama is fully guilty.  He should be impeached and then stand trial for the crimes in federal court.  By withholding this evidence, an officer was unjustly ruined, and Obama corrupted the entire U.S. Army court system.  The judge in the trial should also be cashiered for her participation in this illegal hiding of relevant evidence.

Witness Tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512).  Section 1512 applies to the obstruction 

of federal proceedings – judicial, congressional, or executive.  It consists of four 

somewhat overlapping crimes: use of force or the threat of the use of force to prevent the 

production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(a)); use of deception or corruption or 

intimidation to prevent the production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(b)); destruction or 

concealment of evidence or attempts to do so (18 U.S.C. 1512(c)); and witness 

harassment to prevent the production of evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(d)). 

Obama’s DOMA Betrayal is not a “Distraction”

from Floyd Reports
Feb. 24, 2011
by Ben Johnson

One of the sad ironies of American politics is that Republicans occasionally prove that Democrats are not the only party that can be rigidly disciplined in spreading a mind-bendingly stupid message. It seems that after Barack Obama announced his administration will simplyignore its constitutional duty to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the talking points went out. Suddenly, a host of self-appointed “conservative” talking heads on cable television and talk radio programs had an answer for why Obama embarked on his program of constitutional negligence now. It’s a “distraction,” they said in unison. According to even many “social conservatives,” up to and including William Bennett on his radio program this morning, Obama rolled out this new policy to distract Americans from the fact that he has not done anything to stop the murder of demonstrators in Libya. Various conservatives have advocated everything from harsher rhetoric to saturation bombing.

The American people, they insist, are pining for a third war in the heart of the Muslim world, and surely nothing would enhance America’s security more. Since Obama has not delivered, he made this announcement to cover his tracks. Others claimed he needed to change the focus from the national debt, so he dropped the DOMA Distraction. Either way, the Beltway blatherers tell us, this is merely “politics” to get the people talking about his plan to reinvent marriage, rather thanimportant messages.

Occasionally, listening to Republicans, I wonder if they truly are this stupid.

Why would Obama want to divert the American people’s attention away from a bloodbath they seem not to be terribly invested in and focus it on his implementing a radical policy that the majority of Americans oppose?

The talking heads have it backwards. The riots at home and abroad, and the debate over whether to cut a tiny slither of the federal budget or a slightly larger tiny slither, are the distraction. Redefining society en toto is Obama’s bread and butter.

Barack Obama has long signaled that, despite his campaign rhetoric for the bitter clingers in flyover country, he really wants to make same-sex marriage a reality in the United States. His Department of Housing and Urban Development recently issued a federal regulation that literally redefined the family to include gays, lesbians, and “transgender” Americans. Now that Americans are caught up in a union-led, Soros-funded civil war, Obama feels free to default on his constitutional duty and restructure the American family.

Thankfully, a few news stories have proven some consistent conservatives have not taken the bait. Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan and Texas Congressman Lamar Smith, two rising conservative stars, have spoken out. At the grassroots level the more perceptive speakers include Penny Nance from Concerned Women for America (which is the nation’s largest women’s public policy group, to NOW’s consternation), Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defense Fund, Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition, and members of the American Principles Project.

Sadly, the GOP’s anointed spokespeople seem to have no interest in preserving the most foundational building block of Western civilization or no clue about the true intentions and methods of their target.

for complete article

BOOK TO REVEAL OBAMA'S 'TRUE' IDENTITY?

Could this be the smoking gun story of the century? If true, that Obama is not a US citizen, then we have a President whose every law he signed into law is invalid. 10.0 on the political Richter scale.

-----lee

BOOK TO REVEAL OBAMA'S 'TRUE' IDENTITY?
Wed Apr 20 2011 10:35:52 ET

**Exclusive**

This year's high stakes publishing project quietly went to press this week, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

After years of research and digging by the nation's top private investigators, here it comes:
"WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President."

MORE

The street date is a LONG month away, and author Jerome Corsi, the man who torpedoed John Kerry's presidential dreams with SWIFT BOAT, has gone underground and is holding his new findings thisclose.

"It's utterly devastating," reveals a source close to the publisher. "Obama may learn things he didn't even know about himself!"

MORE

Does Corsi definitively declare the location of Obama's birth?

Will the president's attorneys attempt to interfere with the book's distribution? [The publisher vows to vigorously fight any legal action that may be taken.]

Will the book finally -- once and for all -- put an end to the growing controversy?

Or will it just ignite new ones!?

"When Donald Trump said he sent PIs to Hawaii to get to the bottom of all this, he meant this book," declares an insider.

[THE CASE ranked #1,341 on AMAZON's hitparade late Wednesday morning.]

Developing...  

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

The GOP’s Political Salvation: Impeachment?

I would like to point out one thing: this is not a play for political points, this is a life or death matter for the republic and our constitution.

-------lee


Right idea, wrong issue.  Why is nobody mentioning impeachment for treason, failing to secure our borders, and giving aid and comfort to a Mexican enemy that wants to reconquer (reconquitsa) our Southwest?---rng

Posted on March 25, 2011 by Ben Johnson 

     So far, the first person to seriously raise the issue of impeaching Barack Obama over his illegal, unconstitutional war in Libya is Dennis Kucinich. That means the man whose ideas may do the most to unite the Republican Party is a Democrat.

     To be clear, impeachment is a constitutional remedy for a president intent upon violating its strictures. Unfortunately, it is also a political act, which means politicians must feel they have sufficient support before undertaking it. Many authorities have stated the Libyan intervention rises to the level of an impeachable offense. However, it might simultaneously be the perfect storm necessary to pluck Obama out of office, splinter the Democratic coalition, or weld Republicans together.

     Months into the new Republican Congress, the GOP Establishment worries it will not be able to corral the Tea Party. Despite pseudoconservative attempts to order Tea Party members around and establishment promises to “co-opt them,” this citizens’ uprising induces fear and loathing in the political class on both sides of the aisle.

     To mollify their constituents, Congressional Republicans have tried to prove they are serious about the Constitution and cutting the deficit. They have passed bills requiring members to cite specific constitutional authorization. To date, the Beltway Republicans’ miniscule budget cuts not satisfied the disaffected populist movement.

     What might work? Impeachment.

     King Obama’s war-by-decree was launched with zero constitutional authority. Obama did not obtain a declaration of war, nor even a Congressional “authorization of force.” Libya not only did not pose an “imminent threat” to the United States but no new threat whatsoever. In fact, the George W. Bush administration boasted of its successes in frightening Qaddafi into abandoning his WMD program, for which Bush repaid him generously. Somehow, Qaddafi’s civil war became an American “emergency.”

     White House spokesman Jay Carney claimed Obama did not consult Congress because he believes “delaying action will cost lives.” After consulting with every deliberative body in the world except Congress, Obama dragged our boys into a civil war in the Muslim world that holds no security interest for us at all.

     It should come as no surprise the Libyan fiasco has the lowest approval rating of any military action since Gallup started measuring them. Nearly as many Americans oppose (37 percent) as support it (47 percent). Independents oppose intervention by six percentage points. And, as the Carpenters said, we’ve only just begun.

     President Obama has taken pains to claim the armed forces are not making war but are waging a “kinetic military action.” However, U.S. forces are leading more than two-thirds of the…kinesis. The Associated Press reported this morning the U.S. hand-off to NATO has not yet been hammered out, and U.S. forces will “remain key parts of the effort.”

     Despite attempts at coalition-building, even the nations that invited the United States into the region are turning their backs on us. The Arab League has rolled up the red carpet. Only Qatar and the United Arab Emirates will participate in this military action, leaving the league’s 20 other members sitting in condemnation.

     Why shouldn’t they? Why is the U.S. military entering a third war on behalf of “rebels” who call themselves “mujahedin”? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who directed the jihadists killing Americans in Iraq, personally visited this region of Libya to see “this city that is sending so many” holy warriors his way. According to the Jerusalem Post, al-Qaeda supports the rebels.

     Would American interests really be served by seating these forces in place of a mercurial but occasionally amenable dictator? Has anyone in the West Wing even asked the question?

     Republicans should investigate a host of impeachable offenses committed by this president. Libya, though, is unique.

     The Republicans are not the only party with a base to court. Obama’s decision is deeply unpopular among the netroots activists who determine his party’s primaries – the ones who chose Obama over Clinton in 2008, and Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman in 2006. They oppose this war and increasingly, the Obama administration. They are angry Obama has not withdrawn all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, closed the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, or discontinued Bush-era surveillance activities. Disenchantment became obvious before this week. Aggression against Libya pushed it to a boiling point. They felt outraged at Bush’s actions; they feel betrayed by Obama’s.

     Many Congressmen on the Left, who would never vote against Obama under any other circumstances, will face grassroots pressures of their own to vote for impeachment.

     If Republicans hold together, they could pass impeachment through the House, probably with a few Democratic votes. Kucinich has said he is not pursuing impeachment, but he would be hard-pressed to vote against it.

     Removing Obama from office requires two-thirds of all U.S. senators, most of whom are Democrats. Some RINOs will be inclined to vote against impeachment on the grounds of Libya – which is why several articles should be filed, including a full investigation into the Gerald Walpin, Joe Sestak, the Black Panthers case, and the president’s other lawless actions.

     Democrats up for re-election this year will have to court their antiwar base or risk losing a primary challenge – or having their voters stay home on election day. Democrats Joe Manchin and Jon Tester will be pressured from their more conservative states. Jim Webb of Virginia, who is retiring involuntarily because of Obama’s unpopularity, has criticized the military action in Libya and has nothing to lose voting against him.

     Democratic pols are already worried the mention of impeachment will hurt Obama in 2012. But like all true politicians, they are not worried about Obama; they are worried about themselves. They know if pursued correctly, impeachment could rip the 2008 Democratic voter coalition apart.

     Antiwar voters would be inclined to support impeachment; they have already begun noising that Obama is “no different” than Bush. As Ralph Nader recently said, if Bush should have been impeached for war crimes, then Obama should be impeached for war crimes. On the other hand, 89 percent of blacks support Obama. “Leaders” such as Al Sharpton will play the race card against anyone who supports impeachment, including white liberals.

     Impeachment could drive a wedge between key Democratic constituencies and dispirit activists leading into an election year – yet another reason impeachment is smart politics for Republicans.

     On the other hand, it would unite Republicans and Tea Party activists. A recent poll revealed 60 percent of Tea Party members favor impeachment, as do nearly half of all Republicans – before Libya.

     Some Republicans worry the Libyan rebellion will become a success and turn public opinion against them. But impeachment would not be a referendum on the war but on the unconstitutional manner in which it was launched.

     The UN resolution that Obama cited for his action could as easily lead to U.S. troops stationed on the West Bank, Gaza, or the Lebanese border. It could require American troops to do anything from disarming the Janjaweed militias in Sudan to deposing the president of the Federated States of Micronesia. For that matter, if American troops are ever allowed to pull out of Afghanistan or Pakistan, the Security Council could pass a resolution demanding they stay in place – to assure the new Islamic government grants abortion rights to women.

     The only limits are the creativity of the United Nations and the will of the president in office.

     They should broaden the articles of impeachment to any crime their investigations can prove. And they should emphasize that only removing Obama from office can stop the nation’s runaway deficit spending.

     The last thing Republicans should be doing is what Sen. John Thune is doing: defending Barack Obama. “You have to reserve to your commander in chief the authority to act in emergencies,” he said, as if Libya were a national emergency. Sen. Mark Kirk, the Republican who holds Obama’s old seat, is similarly bashing Kucinich as “one of the most irresponsible, fringe members of Congress.”

     Usually he is; on this issue, he happens to be right.

     He also may be the best strategist the GOP has.

     Barack Obama may have met his Waterloo in Tripoli.

For more .....

Obama's 'birth hospital' hides White House letter Facility officials refuse to disclose document to inquiring state senator

The Constitution provides for impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors."  His refusal to release his birth certificate easily qualifies as a "high misdemeanor" which gravely undermines the dignity of the office and calls for his impeachment.  It is now too late to produce a birth certificate.   Even he shows one, his refusal to do so previously means he must be impeached, and any appointments he made or legislation he signed should be declared invalid.---rng

Posted: March 24, 2011
8:55 pm EasternBy Jerome R. Corsi

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

     NEW YORK – Barack Obama's alleged birth hospital has locked in a storage vault a letter the White House purportedly wrote to the hospital on Jan. 24, 2009, declaring it his birthplace.

     For the past month, Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom, the only Republican in the Hawaiian State Senate, has been trying to get answers from Kapi'olani Medical Center executives as to why the hospital has chosen to put under lock and key a letter from the White House that the hospital should have been proud to receive and display publicly.

     In an email exchange with WND, Slom's office staff confirmed that Martha Smith, the hospital's chief operating officer, said a copy of the Obama letter is currently hung in the administrative section of the hospital, away from public view, while the original is stored for "safekeeping and preservation."

     When Slom's office asked if the senator would be permitted to see the original letter, Smith responded in an email, "Nope sorry, we are not going to do that."

     For weeks, WND has repeatedly left messages with Kapi'olani spokeswomen Kaela Peters and Kristy Wantanabe at their offices in Honolulu, inquiring about the letter, without receiving a reply.

     Several WND readers based in Hawaii have at WND's request toured the public sections of Kapi'olani searching for the Obama birth letter, only to report that it is nowhere to be found.

     Slom told WND he plans to continue his efforts to press Kapi'olani to show him the letter and explain why the hospital administrators refuse to put the letter from the White House on public display.

     The Obama birth letter first surfaced when then-Rep. Neil Abercrombie unveiled at a Kapi'olani centennial dinner held Jan. 24, 2009, a letter supposedly written by Obama that same day. The letter, on White House stationery, declared Kapi'olani was the hospital where the president was born.

     As WND reported, on the same day, Abercrombie's congressional website posted a notice describing Obama's letter as "what is believe to be one of the first messages of congratulations" written by Obama after taking office as president only a few days earlier.

     Kapiolani published the Obama letter in the spring issue of its Inspire Magazine, using it to solicit donations.

     The controversy began in July 2009, when WND analyzed the Obama letter and found that the letter as published by the hospital was not a picture of an actual paper letter but a computer-created likeness.

     Within an hour after WND broke the story in July 2009 that the Obama letter the hospital had posted for six months on its website was electronic in composition, Kapi'olani removed the letter from its website without explanation.

     In July 2009, Watanabe refused to confirm or deny for WND the veracity of Obama's letter claiming he was born at the hospital.

     When WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving asked presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the Obama letter to Kapi'olani on July 13, 2009, Gibbs dodged the question, refusing to confirm its authenticity, while belittling Kinsolving for even posing the question.

     WND also reported that before WND began reporting the Abercrombie-displayed letter from the White House, Obama's birth hospital was widely reported as a different facility, Queens Medical Center in Honolulu.

     WND documented with before-and-after screen captures that several prominent sources, including United Press International, immediately replaced references to Queens as Obama's birthplace with Kapi'olani, without explanation.

For more....

Kucinich retreats from impeachment of Obama

Kucinich also backed away from his opposition to Obamacare when the going got tough.  Presidential material?  I don't think so.---rng

from capitolhillblue.com
By Doug Thompson
Publisher and founder

     Maverick Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich is backing away from his “impeach Barack Obama” statements after it has become apparent that his fellow Democrats and the leadership of his party has no desire to back him.
     So far, the only other member of Congress to back Kucinich is Texas Republican Ron Paul who is as much of an outsider to his party as Kucinich is to Democrats.
“You’re not going to get much support for impeachment when the two people pushing it are the leading whack jobs for each of their parties,” a Democratic strategist told Capitol Hill Blue. “They lack the credibility to lead such an effort.” origianl
     After Obama authorized the attacks on Libya without consulting Congress, Kucinich said Obama committed “an impeachable offense.”
    
     Now he admits the idea is dead.

     “Impeachment is a a process,” he said Thursday, “and it is a process that is not going to begin.”
     During President George W. Bush’s Presidency, Kucinich tried — and failed — to convince Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
     Polls show little public enthusiasm for impeachment and only consumer advocate and failed Green party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader has joined the cause.
     Like Nader, Kucinich and Paul have run for President as fringe candidates.

to read original article

OBAMA A TRAITOR AND WAR CRIMINAL – WHERE’S CONGRESS?

By J.B. Williams

March 21, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

On the eighth anniversary of the day President George W. Bush ordered US troops into Iraq in 2003, with the full support of the US Congress and majority support from the UN Security Council, Barack Obama launched a Tomahawk missile assault on the sovereign nation of Libya with no majority support in the UN and without even consulting congress.

Acting alone while congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on the sovereign nation of Libya in a dictatorial maneuver to force regime change of a foreign land.

He launched a military assault on Libya under what authority? To be certain, Gadhafi is no prize, but what Obama just did is far worse. Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his Oath of Office, Article I and II of the US Constitution and The War Powers Act all in one mindless kneejerk decision.

Article II – Section II of the US Constitution identifies the US President as the civilian oversight of the US Military and Commander-in-Chief. But it gives the US President no authority to use military might to enforce its political will upon foreign nations.

Article I – Section VIII of the US Constitution rests the power to declare war solely with the US Congress. It requires both the Commander-in-Chief and Congress to commit US troops to combat, without which the act is wholly unconstitutional.

Even the Washington Times managed to get this one right in its editorial – Obama’s Illegal War.

The 1973 War Powers Act was put in place to prevent a US President from doing exactly what Barack Obama just did.

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

A US Commander-in-Chief can order use of military force in only three specific conditions…

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The US Congress has not declared war against a foreign nation since WWII. But when George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil, he not only consulted congress in advance, he sought and received specific statutory authorization from congress before ordering troops into combat. Bush complied with the constitution and War Powers Act under conditions (2) and (3). He also had a broad coalition of UN partners backed by years of Iraqi broken UN resolutions.

In the case of Obama and Libya, none of these conditions exist.

1) Congress did not declare war.
2) Congress was not consulted and did not give specific statutory authorization.
3) The US was not attacked in any way by Libya which presented no threat to the US or US assets.

As a result, Barack Obama had NO constitutional authority to attack Libya with over $70 million worth of US taxpayer Tomahawks, placing American soldiers in harm’s way in yet another war which cannot even be justified by the pursuit of oil.

Obama touched down in Brazil as American soldiers launched a military assault on Libya at Obama’s command. Obama stands alone in this decision and order, without the support of the American people, without constitutional authority and in direct violation of his Oath of Office and the War Powers Act.

Obama is a war criminal and traitor as a result. He has acted alone, well beyond the scope and authority of his office and at odds with the national interests of the United States and the constitution which he took an oath to uphold and defend.

The Washington Times has it right. Even crook Democrat Charlie Rangel has it right - saying he was angry that Congress was not consulted before the military strikes.

He said he was undecided on whether the military action against Libya was justified but thought lawmakers and their constituents should have had time to weigh in. "Our presidents seem to believe that all we have to do is go to the U.N. and we go to war," Rangel said.


to finish article

Donald Trump: Obama presidency possibly illegal 'To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate'

What is truly disgusting is the number of "conservative" politicians who will not demand a vetting of Obama's qualifications to serve.  Obama's refusal to provide a birth certificate constitutes an impeachable "misdemeanor" under our Constitution.  Even if he produces it now it is too late.  His refusal to settle the issue thus far has been an insult to his office, his country, and the Constitution and can only be remedied by impeachment.---rng

The Donald is stirring up the pot of presidential candidates.  The 2012 contest should be one exciting and informative election for the recently comatose voting public.---lee

Posted: March 29, 2011

1:35 am Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

      Billionaire developer and possible Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is now suggesting Barack Obama's presidency could be "illegal" if legitimate proof is not provided demonstrating the commander in chief is indeed a "natural born citizen" of the U.S.
     Trump's use of the "I" word came last night during a phone interview with Greta Van Susteren of the Fox News Channel.
     "To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate," Trump said, "because [otherwise] that would mean that his presidency was, I guess you'd have to say, illegal. You have to be born in the United States. I hope that he was born in the United States. I hope – but I want to get rid of the word hope, I want to know for sure – I hope that he was born in the United States and I hope this doesn't become a big issue."

     Trump defended so-called "birthers," explaining, "They just want to see the president was born in this country."

     He also called into question Hawaii's Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie for suggesting he remembered when Obama was born nearly a half century ago.
     "I'll bet he didn't even know the parents 50 years ago," Trump said. "I think it's absolutely insane. What he's doing is taking a bullet for the party by making a statement that, 'I remember.'"
     Trump also wondered why no doctors or nurses have come forward to announce their presence at Obama's birth.
     "Here's the president of the United States, and no doctor, no nurse, nobody's come forward saying, 'I delivered that beautiful baby.'"
     Earlier in the day, Trump released an image of his own hospital-generated birth certificate from the Jamaica Hospital in Queens, N.Y., and brought up Obama's spending of large sums of money to keep the history of his early years under wraps. He followed later by releasing his official, vault-copy birth certificate.
     "He spent millions of dollars trying to get away from this issue. Millions of dollars in legal fees trying to get away from this issue. I brought it up just routinely. All of a sudden a lot of facts are emerging, and I'm starting to wonder myself whether he was born in this country," Trump said on "Fox & Friends."
     "This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn't," he added. "I didn't think it was such a big deal, but I will tell you it's turning out to be a very big deal. Because people now are calling me from all over saying please don't give up on this issue.
     As WND reported just a week ago, not even one person in 10 says Barack Obama has shown that he is eligible to be president, according to a new scientific poll that also reveals political independents have less tolerance than even Republicans for his efforts to obfuscate the issue. Another 32 percent would disregard the questions entirely, concluding they are not valid.
     While much of the concern centers on Obama's birth certificate – he's refused to release his original document specifying the birth hospital and doctor's name, substituting instead a computer-generated summary of information purportedly in the Hawaii state archives – there are numerous other documents that remain unavailable.
     These are the types of records that typically are available for major political leaders such as someone occupying the Oval Office. They include his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

For more....