Search this Site

  • Google


« Founder of TV Station Designed to Portray Moslems Positively Murders Wife | Main | Our Topsy-turvy world: Invaders Awarded Money in Suit Against American Citizen »

February 16, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


His choice to spend hundres of thousands of dollars on lawyers instead of producing a $10 birth certificate confirms that he has something to hide.

Obama has pulled off the biggest hoax in US History.


Obama is a phony. Even worse than Bill Clinton. Keyes has his number though. I just hope Keyes comes out of it alright.


Personally I think this is bigger than simply Obama lying and pulling off the greatest hoax. This smells of an international conspiracy.. Why would the black robes blow this off? Were'nt they put in that position to defend the Constitution? This man has shown utter contempt for the Constitution and to think that he has any affinity to abide by it is ludicrous. Our so called media outlets are complicit in that they are not or refusing to do their job. I mean all of them. I dont for one second buy into the "right-wing media" and "left-wing media" BS they are all the voice of big corporate money used to divide and conquer. Its time to stop crying and start preparing.. PC KILLS!!!


Selwyn Duke,

Thank you for continuing to pursue this. I don't know what he's hiding, Kenyan birth or Indonesian citizenship perhaps, I don't know if it's enough to disqualify him or just to embarass him. But he's hiding something, that much is proven.

The eligibility issue is one I had hoped would not go away after the inauguration and it is still one possible way that Obama can be unseated before doing 4 years of damamge.

Philip France

God bless Mr. Keyes.

Here is the question that I have sought an answer to that has yet eluded me: What happens if BHO's fraud is exposed? Does that mean that Biden becomes President, God forbid? Or is a new election in order? Is there a Constitutional scholar that can please provide the answer to this question?


Prior to the inauguration I believe that McCain would have had to be declared the winner. Post inauguration I have no notion. I'd like to know also.


Here is a fun one to ponder. Consider the recent sickness of Judge Ginsberg.
Assume she is unable to fulfill her duties.
Assume this case grows legs and makes it to the Supreme Court.
Assume Ginsberg can not be replaced due to conformation deadlock or due to conflict of interest.
Assume a deadlock on party lines in the court (I know there are not supposed to be party lines but there are).

Who then breaks on the deadlock of American Constitutional law? I'll bet the World court would be happy to volunteer.

I know this is a bit far out but it might make a good novel...I wish Orwell was still alive.


Obama was elected fairly and by no close margin by the American people. What is Keyes trying to prove? That the man we voted into office was a foreigner? Who the hell cares? He won the election fair in square. Is it really so important that all his 'papers are in order' when it is clear and plain as day that he is just as American as you presumably are.

Honestly, when the strongest argument you can come up with for someone not being president is based on the silly little patch of land he was born on being possibly different from your own, you might as well admit defeat.


Your right, its just a rule, a law. Why do we even abide by laws? After all, they are a social construction anyway. We should do away with the Constitution that way our nation isn't "constrained" by laws and we can do as we please. Then, only then, will people be happy and Nirvana can be achieved. Peace out!!!


That is called a straw-man fallacy. You did not at all adress any of the points I made in my post - Instead you fabricated a laughably stupid argument and crammed it into my mouth, so to speak, as you are presumably unable to cope with the initial argument.

Where in my post do I say anything about Nirvana? This "hippie" stereotype you're attempting to apply to me I would not expect to get slapped with by a professed Christian such as yourself (not any stereotype, for that matter).

And where do I say or even begin to hint that we should not have laws? I will not go as far as to say that every law should be obeyed simply because it is law, but it stands to reason that laws that are senseless, pointless, or no longer in-context should be gotten-rid-of, wouldn't you think? Our society is very obviously not exactly the same as it was 50 or even 10 years ago, and law changes all the time.

Ignoring your complete ignorance of the actual point I was attempting to make, I'll go ahead and simplify it for you:

Whatever Keyes is trying to do with his petty nonsense charges is counterproductive to this country as a whole. If somehow Obama were impeached this early into his presidency, we would collectively be thrown into far greater turmoil than we've seen in decades. Obama is not attempting to "financially ruin" his detractors - As noted he has hired "multimillion-dollar" lawyers in his defense....Does it make sense that he would seek to guarantee that their cost is paid? And how fitting that it be paid by those who would seek to impede the progress of our country for.....what? Because of his lineage? The color of his skin?
What are they actually seeking to prove? That by some horribly outmoded technicality the person whom this country believes is best suited to be president is not allowed the job?


We live in some horrible times is this is even questioned!
" Obama was elected fairly and by no close margin by the American
people. What is Keyes trying to prove? That the man we voted
into office was a foreigner? Who the hell cares? He won the
election fair in square. Is it really so important that all
his 'papers are in order' when it is clear and plain as day
that he is just as American as you presumably are."

No your right Nihil, we should just allow what your spoiled little rear ends wants, right? No matter what the cost!


And what cost is that exactly? I didn't actually say anything about "allowing what he wants", and I don't think the charge Mr. Keyes is pressing has anything to do with what Obama wants either. Other than, obviously, the fact that he wants to run the country, a want which I think he could make a fair case for being entitled to, what with winning the presidential election by a landslide and all.

No, my post is about what *I* want, and what *I* want is for people like Mr. Keyes to go back to their regular jobs and quit hamstringing, or attempting to hamstring, the government of this country. If they actually cared about said country they would realize that all they are doing is tossing a tiny little pissant wrench into the cogs and wheels which operate our government.

Edit: I won't even say fallacy. That's a whole 'nother can of worms that I doubt your obviously limited reasoning capacity can cope with.


I found video of Obama that is very interesting

Philip France

Nihil is a case in point that liberalism is a mental disorder. He demonstrates a reasonable modicum of intelligence, but his brain is twisted. My presumption is that he is a marijuana user or addicted to psychotropic medication. I would further presume that his upbringing was absent of a loving father.

Nihil, my deluded friend; the United States of America is a Republic, not a Democracy. You probably do not know the difference. In a Democracy, majority rules (for better or worse). In a Republic, we subject ourselves to the law of the land. Take a timeout; take a few deep breaths and then resume:

The law of our land states that one of only two qualifications for our highest office is that a candidate be of a certain age and that he be a natural-born citizen. This makes Ambassador Keyes' case extremely relevant. If we defy our rule of law, we invite anarchy.

I will further point out that President Obama is demonstrative of anarchy. Consider:

His nomination to Cabinet positions of a man under Federal investigation (Bill Richardson).

His nomination of at least three more who are known tax-cheats (not to mention a woman whose husband is one).

His nomination to Deputy Attprney General of a pornographer (technically a sympathizer of purveyors of pornography, but a disgraceful and an aberrant human being).

That Obama has blatantly lied (as has his VP Joe Biden) throughout his campaign and early Presidency. Remember that he PROMISED to make available the "stimulus" plan for 48 hours prior to Congress voting on it. He lied.

He is lying when he has repeated, ad nauseum, that we are in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We are not. The economic crisis at the end of the Carter administration was far worse. He lied. I could go on, but for the sake of brevity I will conclude with one final point.

Barack Hussein Obama's primary experience entering politics was that of a so-called "community organizer". That is one who encourages voter fraud and enables the incompetant and unproductive members of society to vote themselves generous gifts from our Treasury; at the expense of the competant and the productive. This made a temporary celebrity of Joe the Plumber for candidly pointing this out.

This man studied at the feet of deranged Marxist professors and mentors. His associations are dangerous terrorists (Ayers and Dohrn), racist lunatics (Rev. Wright, Pastor Fleger) and felons (Tony Rezko) to say the least. Clear-headed Americans have every right to question his competancy and we should know the truth about his birth status.

You should be afraid of him, my friend. Look at what he has done so far in just four weeks in the Oval Office. Look at it HONESTLY; OBJECTIVELY. Are you capable of objective thought? Probably not, but there is hope: at least you are reading Selwyn Duke's columns.


My argument was no straw man fallacy. I merely made a mockery of your casual dismissal of laws. Laws which apply to the most powerful man on the planet right now. Granted some laws are outdated and do not serve purpose in today's society. However, which individual (Obama) has the right to side step any of them for their own purposes? Laws which are invalid need to be done away with by a constitutionally sound means. Laws are in place for such a position to protect the people from harm. That is why, as Im sure you know, we are not a direct rule by the people. Majorities cannot do away with the Law at their whim. Maybe that is something you refuse to accept.



Not going to type up a lengthy response, as I've work soon, but it suffices to say that:

The point is moot, and Keyes and his cronies should stop wasting their time. If Dubya managed to make it through two presidencies without being impeached and with around a 40% approval rating, I'd like to see them try and have a go at Obama.
Also, should Obama be impeached, there would very likely be rioting and violence on a scale never before seen in our country, and likely the world, as the people would have been robbed of their choice of a leader, and the precedent would be set for all sorts of shady political dealings.

So "laws are in place (for such a position?) to protect people from harm" again would the land of his birth or his heritage possibly harm us? He obviously grew up as American as any other.

Honestly, people like Keyes are just gonna keep throwing crap at the wall throughout his presidency (much as many did throughout that of Dubya) in the hopes that something will stick. Hopefully nothing does.


On the serious side of things, perhaps Keys and Berg are barking up the wrong tree. Let's face it Obama knows the truth here. Even though he can not recall his own birth, he was born nonetheless. The truth of his birth is as he has been told, not as he remembers. Charles Dickens in the book David Copperfield wrote,
“...I record that I was born (as I have been informed and believe) on a Friday, at twelve o'clock at night. It was remarked that the clock began to strike, and I began to cry, simultaneously."
The character, David Copperfield, arrived at the truth of his birth by what he was told. Logical since he had yet to become capable of long term memory.

By the same measure, I am sure; Barrack Hussein Obama arrived at his birth place and time.

Enter Grandma Obama; a self described eye witness to his birth in Kenya. Should not this living eye witnesses, record of his birth be given serious consideration? As recorded Sarah Hussein Obama said she, "…was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961." The truth is known within the family; however the only two still living that know the truth are Barrack and Sarah. Who is lying?

January 20, 2009 President elect Obama swore to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." UNDER OATH! On that day, with that oath, Barrack Hussein Obama did willingly commit surgery. Knowledge of foreign birth and knowledge of the natural birth requirement in the Constitution are contrary to the preservation and protection of the Constitution. By his first act as President he invites indictment. Is a perjury incitement the “right tree” to bark up?

The question is: Does the statement by his grandmother, a self proclaimed eye witness to his birth provide reasonable doubt? I would say so.


Yeah try it again without Rush Limbaugh feeding you lines over your shoulder and we'll talk.

Lee Pevear

If Obama was not eligible to run for the office of President of the U.S., the fact that he was elected is meaningless - the reason the Founding Fathers made the "natural-born" clause in the Constitution is to prevent someone whose interests might lean toward the foreign, rather than the U.S., from becoming a ruler in this country.

Further, ponder this: this election was "over" in record time - I maintain it was impossible to come to a full counting in the time it was done - look at the last 6 elections - none was declared over in the short amount of time it took for Obama to be declared the winner. I maintain he did not win the election by a full vote count of eligible voters - the FBI is still investigating the massive fraud claims about ACORN, admittedly one of Obama's intimate connections.

Philip France


I work during the day (you should try it sometime). I therefore do not listen to Rush Limbaugh. I take it by your accusation that you are conceding the argument. This is typical when one opposes another that is armed with facts; something liberals/Leftists are almost always devoid of and demonstrate a hostility toward.


Nihil has no capacity for logic or objectivity. He is a secular humanist. He has no concept of right and wrong because he has no moral compass. Simply put, he is just another one of the liberal cult's goyim.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

September 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30