Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

For example, if you have ever watched any of the CSI shows on TV, then you have probably seen how they take photographs of objects in their lab. They use a digital camera mounted on a frame directly over a table on which the object lies. The camera lens is facing downwards and perfectly perpendicular to the table in all directions. Now, when a CSI takes a photograph of a printed piece of paper laid flat on the table, what is captured by a camera's digital imaging system is perceptually equivalent to what is captured by a scanner's digital imaging system. In other words, what is captured is an image of a flat piece of paper with only two of its three dimensions visible (with depth being the missing dimension).

To accomplish the same perpendicular positioning of an object, as if it were lying on a table with the camera mounted to a frame or tripod directly above it, both the photographer and the holder have to be directly facing each other, and the camera has to be held at the same height as is the object being held. The camera also has to be aimed point-blank at the object.

Clearly, such was not the case with any of the Factcheck photos as all of them were taken at an angle -- some more than others.

Granted that taking pictures of an object with a hand held camera will never be perfectly inline with the object as it could have been if a mount or tripod was used, there are guides within the camera viewfinder that can be used to position the photo. In other words, the photos of the date stamp and signature block could have been taken without any accompanying angles. Of the two photos, photo #9 is the closest one to being perpendicular to the stamps, but it is still off slightly to the left side. I mention this because I will be making comparisons between the photos taken of the stamps by Factcheck with some of the photos I took of the stamps on the paper COLB I have. I also will make comparisons between the image allegedly scanned from Obama's COLB with the scan images I made and have of the 2007 and 2008 COLBs.

For moderately experienced Photoshop users, manipulating all three dimensions in an image is child's play. If anything, visually adding depth, or modifying its existing depth with Photoshop (or another image editor), does tend to confirm in our brain that we are looking at an object that actually exists in the real world, and for that reason, Factcheck decided to take high resolution photos of the COLB object positioned at different angles to accentuate its depth. What they did not realize is that whenever you photograph a printed document from different angles, you are also photographing whatever is printed on it from the same angles. Whatever perspective was created by angling the COLB object in three dimensions, that same perspective should be discernible across the entire COLB image.

For example, logically speaking (and in actuality), if you rotate a printed piece of paper to the left so that the top and bottom edges of the paper are angled to the left, and if the printed text on the paper is parallel to the top and bottom edges, then the text should remain parallel to the edges and be tiled at the same angle as the top and bottom edges. Now, what if, after tilting the paper to the left, let's say at a 45 degree angle, the text on the printed paper is no longer parallel with the edges of the paper; that is, they remain level from left to right as if the paper were never rotated in the first place?

Well, you'd say, "What's wrong with this picture. Something does not look right here," and you'd be on-the-mark, for that is exactly what happened in the photographs taken of the COLB.

Regardless of whether Factcheck photographed the COLB object angled in three dimensions simply to prove that it was a 3-D object, or to obscure the evidence of forging, the end result for me was the same: showing the COLB from different angles allowed me to find a lot of things that did not "look right." In fact, there were a lot of things about the text on the COLBs that did not look right. So, giving credit to whom credit is due, I say, "Thanks, Factcheck," for providing me with a greater number of unrealistic features to find in your photographs.

For the purpose of these next experiments, I'm going to use Factcheck's photo #2 and photo #5, which are the clearest ones made of the COLB's midsection, and are also the ones showing multiple angles of the COLB.

The first characteristic of these pictures to which I draw your attention, is the way that Factcheck kept them partially folded as a way of emphasizing that this COLB object had two folds -- something their image did not have. Again, by adding additional angles into the pictures, I can better see if the text on each folded part is flowing along at the appropriate angles.

As can be seen in the photo #2 below, the COLB is rotated at two distinct angles of incident: (1) angled upwards from left to right, and (2) angled down and away from the camera. These angles result in the upper right corner (or quadrant) of the COLB appearing to be closer to the camera, and the lower left corner (or quadrant) appearing to be further away. The COLB is sharply angled on both the top and bottom folds in their appropriate direction of folding (top, folded back, and bottom, folded forward).

Since the printed elements on the COLB itself should be similarly aligned with the four sides of the COLB border and the four edges of the paper, there are four primary perspective effects in the printed elements that should be readily visible to the viewer, such as the angle of the lines of text with respect to the border, to the paper, and to the camera' POV. To put it simply, if the paper is tilted down to the left, then the horizontal lines of text directly facing the camera should also be tilted down and to the left. If the paper is angled away from the camera lens so that the two fold lines appear to converge rather than remain parallel, then the lines of text should also appear to converge.

Unlike the paper on which they are printed, the position of letters can only vary on two dimensions: left and right and up and down. We can see in the scan image, allegedly made from the same document in the photos, that the lines of text are parallel to the top and bottom borders, and that the orientation of the letters in the text are placed parallel to the sides of the borders. Therefore, if one were to draw a straight horizontal line along the bottom of all the letters in a text string, as well as to draw a line perpendicular to this baseline, right next to (or through) the vertical stroke of one of these letters. "E," "F," "H," "I," "K," "L," "R," or "T", these two lines should also run parallel to the borders (either the inside edge or the outside one):

When looking at photo #5, the center portion (middle 1/3) of the COLB is facing towards the camera, the top 1/3 is folded back and away from the camera, and the bottom 1/3 is folded forward and towards the camera. Since the top 1/3 and bottom 1/3 are folded by approximately the same amount, then their surfaces would also be parallel to each other. This means that the lines of text on both the top 1/3 and the bottom 1/3 will be wider at the base, the closer it is to the camera, and narrower at the top the further away it is from the camera.

These angles and perspective are the critical features of a document bent, turned and folded in different directions. So, when I discovered that the printed lines of text (and objects like the Seal and stamps) do not appear at all like they should, then something was deliberately done to either the document, to the photo of the document, or both, that speaks directly to the way the COLB document was artificially constructed.

To put it bluntly, the Factcheck photos have been "Frankensteined," just as the Factcheck scan image was cobbled together with the parts of different COLBs. The use of the term, "document" is simply for expediency sake, as no, single "real" document was used for these photos or for the scan image.

Information about the Florida lawsuit

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/200 ... Obama.html

[quote]Challenging Obama’s eligibility – What now?

By Linda Bentley | December 24, 2008
Florida Supreme Court dismisses petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice
TALLAHASSEE, FLA. – The 21st court challenge to President-elect Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility was filed in Florida earlier this month by W. Spencer Connerat, III against Florida Secretary of State Kurt S. Browning as a petition for extraordinary emergency writ of mandamus and stay of presidential election to be held in the Florida Senate Chambers on Dec. 15.

Connerat also filed a motion for an immediate hearing.

However, on Friday, Dec. 19, the Florida Supreme Court dismissed his petition, stating, “Petitioner’s petition for a writ of mandamus is hereby dismissed without prejudice because the petition does not set forth a clear legal right. Petitioner’s motion for immediate hearing is denied as moot.â€

Thank you, FreedomFirst. That's some good research.

Florida and Indiana . . . that's the encouragement we need to keep pushing for the Constitution and the truth.

I sure thought Rep. John Linder was on board. But Congressmen and Senators are nothing if not pragmatic: politicians first and lawmakers second. That's why we have Supreme Court Justices with lifetime office.

Anyone who thinks this issue is going to go away should take note that, as of Dec. 26, the two "Obama birth certificate" threads on Hannity.com have 24,612 posts, this thread has over 10,000 views, and Phil Berg's obamacrimes.com has had in the vicinity of 100,000,000 hits. His case is going to conference in the Supreme Court on Jan. 9th.

PRAY.

Is anybody else feeling like "The little red hen"? The parties are saying it is not their job to check. The secretaries of state are saying it is not their job, but the parties, the courts are saying that nobody has standing to ask him and congress is planning on doing nothing, probably because they didn't check him out before he became a senator and IF he is not a citizen at all, they could be in a huge mess.

I am certain that SOMEBODY is responsible to check them out, it has just been so long since ANYBODY has actually done it, NOBODY remembers whose job it is. and EVERYBODY in our government is terrified that Berg etal are right.

This must be why ex-Sen. Obama wants his Certificate of Live Birth kept secret -
he is a citizen of the world! (Who'da thunk it?)

Phyllis Schlafly reports that he is a world citizen but doesn't mention his U.S. citizenship - whether he is a "natural born citizen," a "native-born citizen," a "naturalized citizen," or simply an "illegal alien."

I wouldn't so much mind him rejoining the "World Community," if he would just leave the rest of us out of it.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/d ... 12-26.html

Obama's Plan to Rejoin the World Community

by Phyllis Schlafly, December 26, 2008

When Candidate Barack Obama declared himself a "citizen of the world" before thousands of cheering German socialists, and later pledged to "rejoin the World Community," those weren't just his usual platitudes about "change." Those words sounded the trumpet for his specific and far-reaching globalist agenda.

Obama plans to use his presidential power to get the Democratic-majority Senate to ratify a series of treaties that would take us a long way toward global rule over our money, our laws, our military, our courts, our customs, our trade, and even our use of energy. Here are the treaties he says he wants.

The UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which Reagan rejected in 1982, is high on Obama's list. LOST has already created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in Jamaica and given it total regulatory jurisdiction over all the world's oceans and all the riches on the ocean floor.

Corrupt foreign dictators dominate LOST's global bureaucracy, and the U.S. would have the same vote as Cuba. Likewise for LOST's International Tribunal in Hamburg, Germany, which has the power to decide all disputes.

Even worse, LOST gives the ISA the power to levy international taxes. The real purpose of the taxing power is to compel the United States to spend billions of private-enterprise dollars to mine the ocean floor and then let ISA bureaucrats transfer our wealth to socialist, anti-American nations.

Next on Obama's list is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999. It would prohibit all nuclear explosive testing and thereby allow our nuclear arsenal to deteriorate until the American people are defenseless against rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea.

A new Global Warming Treaty is starting to be written at the UN Climate Change Conference in Poland in order to replace the Kyoto Agreement which George W. Bush and our Senate refused to ratify. The new treaty would force dramatic reductions in our use of energy, i.e., our standard of living, and impose the "strong international norms" that Obama seeks.

Obama is toadying to his feminist friends by pushing ratification of the UN Treaty on Women, known as CEDAW. It was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1980 and persistently promoted by Hillary Clinton, but the Senate has so far had the good judgment to refuse to ratify it.

This treaty would require us "to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women," to follow UN dictates about "family education," to revise our textbooks to conform to feminist ideology in order to ensure "the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women," and to set up a federal "network of child-care facilities."

Article 16 would require us to allow women "to decide number and spacing of their children." Everyone recognizes this as feminist jargon for a UN obligation to allow abortion on demand.

Like all UN treaties, the UN Treaty on Women creates a monitoring commission of so-called "experts" to ensure compliance. The monitors of the Treaty on Women have already singled out Mother's Day as a stereotype that must be eliminated.

Another UN Treaty on the list is the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which was signed in 1995 by Bill Clinton but wisely never ratified by our Senate. This is a pet project of the people who believe that the "village" (i.e., the government or UN "experts") should raise children rather than their parents.

This treaty would give children rights against their parents and society to express their own views "freely in all matters," to receive information of all kinds through "media of the child's choice," to use their "own language," and to have the right to "rest and leisure." This treaty even orders our schools to teach respect for "the Charter of the United Nations."

These Obama-endorsed treaties, every one of which would be a dramatic encroachment on U.S. sovereignty, would be supplemented by trade agreements negotiated by Obama's Trade Representative, Ron Kirk. He is an enthusiastic supporter of the "global economic community" (which means open borders for "free" trade), of NAFTA, and even of the NAFTA SuperHighway, which he calls the "true river of trade between our communities."

Kirk's work to lock us into the global economy will be bolstered by Obama's Secretary of Commerce, Bill Richardson, another aggressive promoter of "free" trade.

Every UN treaty would interfere with self-government over some aspect of our lives and would transfer significant power to foreign bureaucrats, many of whom hate and envy America. Obama's UN treaties are the enemy of U.S. political and social independence, and Kirk's global economic community is the enemy of good middle-class American jobs.

Obama a natural born Vulcan.

Spoof

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?a ... 4977546274

and it calls those who question whether the Constitution is being violated a pack of wingnuts. Naturally.

For all of you non-Vulcans out there, there is a new Forum dubbed "Matters Of National Security" The purpose of the forum is to ORGANIZE the movement of, and is for only those loyal concerned citizens, patriots and legal teams and activists, who are trying to protect our Constitution.

http://www.atfreeforum.com/matters/

Another spoof on the NBC topic, this one out of Notre Dame and reprinted in the RenewAmerica website.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/otoole/081227

December 27, 2008
ND victory(s): Jimmy "Santa" Claus-en leads Irish over Hawaii, but does the Weis-man take down Obama?
By Tom O'Toole

Certainly, Notre Dame's decisive 49-21 Hawaiian Bowl victory over the host Hawaii Warriors accomplished volumes just on the Fightin' Irish football surface. Playing on the eve of the holiest day save Easter, the Domers not only silenced their critics and exorcised the demons of past bowl games, putting an end to their dubious NCAA record of nine consecutive bowl losses (a fact ESPN unfailingly reminded its viewers over a hundred times a day in the weeks leading up to the contest), but honored Her namesake and payed homage to Her Son's sacred day in the process. Noble deeds indeed ... but did their immobile coach uncover something far greater in the process?

First, let it be stated that Jimmy Clausen's final sophomore performance proved that, given time and talented receivers, the California Kid can throw the football. Passing for 299 yards in the first half alone as the Irish jumped to a 28-7 halftime lead, Clausen exited the game in the third quarter (unlike BCS big shots Florida and Oklahoma, Notre Dame refuses to run up the score, sending in the subs when the contest is no longer in doubt) and finished the game 22-26 for 406 yards and five touchdowns. And, considering three of those incompletions were drops, Clausen and the Irish receiving core, led by Hawaiian Bowl co-MVP Golden "Frankincense and Myrrh" Tate (6 catches, 177 yds, 3 TDs) were about as close to perfection as possible. And, with the Irish offense scoring six points on six consecutive possessions, the ND defense racking up two turnovers and eight sacks, and the special teams recording a blocked punt, a kick-off return of 96 yards by Armando Allen, and nearly a punt run-back by Tate (erased because of roughing), you can see why Coach Charlie Weis, who stated, "The only thing I want for Christmas is an Irish win," went home a happy man.

But was there another reason that the Irish were playing in Hawaii? Obviously, with a regular season record of 6-6, Notre Dame wasn't going to a BCS game. And yet, with their famous name, the Irish still had their choice among the lesser bowls. And why exactly was Coach Weis coaching from the press box? True, Charlie had blown out both his knees after being run over on an out-of-bounds tackle during the regular season, making standing difficult and the sidelines dangerous. But could there have been an even more important, even more dangerous reason?

Rumor from a reliable Irish patriot had it that, besides calling the plays from the press box, Coach Weis was running a covert operation, coordinating an undercover pro-life effort to storm the Hawaiian statehouse and uncover President-elect Obama's fraudulent birth certificate, proving that he was not a natural-born citizen, thus rendering Barack ineligible for the presidency. Unfortunately, the patriots forgot to change their pro-life t-shirts, and since being openly against abortion is practically a crime already in parts of Hawaii, they were picked up for being suspicious characters, some claiming the police were alerted by Obama's secret service (the prez-elect was vacationing, if not worshipping, in Hawaii over the holiday) themselves. In any event, their detainment critically ruined the timing of "Operation Leprechaun," quite possibly forever, and Weis (after his two knee operations) has to go back to being only the Notre Dame football coach.

Which, in the case of a strong Catholic and family man like Weis, may not be such a bad thing. For, while Bryan Fischer notes in his fine article, "The reason for the season," that most great American universities (including football powers such as Southern California and Idaho's Boise State, as well as Harvard, Yale and Northwestern) were founded as Christian colleges, few of them remain so. However, Notre Dame, despite secular challenges (and no doubt because of the daily Catholic Masses and round-the-clock prayer to Our Lord at its famous grotto), is still officially committed to the mission of spreading the Good News of Christ. And, although many of the Irish sports teams (both ND basketball teams are ranked in the top 15, women's soccer finished the season ranked 2nd, and men's hockey is currently rated #1) still meet with success, from the time of Knute Rockne the Notre Dame football team has traditionally not only defeated prejudice but championed the Faith. And, since Notre Dame is the only exposure to our Christian faith that millions of non- or nominally-believing football fans receive each week, it is imperative, especially in this increasingly secular age, that the Irish represent Our Lord well. Besides, we all knew that the uncovering of Obama's true birth certificate thing was a long shot, and had about as much chance of succeeding as Notre Dame did in defeating Southern California this season...

Ah, but 2009 may be a different story. A strong recruiting class, lots of prayers, plus the fact the Irish are playing Southern Cal in South Bend just may be enough for Notre Dame to once again knock the dreaded Trojans off their high horse. Similarly, and more importantly, with strong writers, dedicated pray-ers, and devout followers being added to their numbers every day, 2009 may be the year that RenewAmerica, Free Republic, and other Christian Web sites break the deadly stranglehold the Obama administration has on this nation as well.

A Dreamer's Disclaimer: While the ND-Hawaii game stats are quite accurate, "Operation Leprechaun" is the type of rumor heard not at the Pentagon, but an Irish Pub, and, therefore regrettably, may be pure fantasy. Still, if Coach Weis is entitled to a Christmas Wish, surely the author is entitled to a Christmas Dream ...

The Keyes lawsuit got coverage in Essence magazine.

http://www.essence.com/news_entertainme ... eyesobama/

POSTED: DECEMBER 8, 2008
Controversy Over Obama's Eligibility For President Heats Up
Cynthia Gordy



UPDATE: On Friday, the Supreme Court turned down the emergency appeal from the New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president.

The growing legal battle against President-elect Barack Obama's presidency is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court this week. The justices will decide whether or not to look into a lawsuit challenging Obama's citizenship. While the lawsuit is a continuation of a New Jersey case, the citizenship question has sparked a number of lawsuits from Obama's opponents.

Among those who have filed lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who ran an unsuccessful race against Barack Obama in 2004 for the Illinois Senate. Now, U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has taken an interest in the legal question and asked the rest of the bench to look into the case. Obama received dual citizenship since his father was a Kenyan-born national, which arguably doesn't qualify him as a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution.

A petition to stop the Electoral College from confirming Obama as the forty-fourth President of the United States on December 15 has already been rejected by Justice David Souter, but in a rare move, Thomas has stepped in and granted the case time before the high court in a conference scheduled for Friday.

ESSENCE.com spoke to Keyes about why he's challenging Obama's citizenship and if this whole lawsuit is just an overblown case of sour grapes.

ESSENCE.COM: What exactly do you want to accomplish with this lawsuit?
ALAN KEYES: I had read a little bit about the issues that were being raised about Obama back during the primary season. At first I thought, like a lot of people, "There's nothing to this. It's just a matter of fact. You can establish what the facts are." The Constitution specifies that a citizen who is naturalized, rather than born into the status of being an American citizen, cannot be president. That was done in the beginning because people feared a foreign takeover of the United States government by the process of immigration. Staid as it is, we again are in a situation where a lot of foreign entities have influence or control over U.S. policy.

The reason an issue has been raised about Obama is because of the simple question, which can be answered with a birth certificate that shows he was born in the United States, or born to parents who had the capacity to transmit U.S. citizenship. When the question was asked, he danced around it. If the most important office of the federal government can be occupied by someone who is not qualified under the United States Constitution, that destroys the authority of the Constitution. I think it's something that needs to be dealt with in a clear, straightforward way. Eventually the case will get to the Supreme Court, establish the facts, and clear the air. It's really all very simple.

ESSENCE.COM: The Obama campaign responded to these questions months ago by posting a birth certificate on his campaign Web site, showing that he was born in Hawaii.
KEYES: A lot of questions have been raised about what they posted. It has to be established by a matter of fact, not by some Web site. The state of Hawaii needs to share the birth certificate with the Supreme Court, so they can take a look at it. When I went into the government as part of the United States foreign service, you had to submit an original copy of your birth certificate. People have been dancing around Obama's certification instead of going straight to the answer.

ESSENCE.COM: What's wrong with the birth certificate on his Web site?
KEYES: Part of the problem is, at the time he was born, the state of Hawaii was issuing certificates of live birth. That's what he has on the Web site. They would issue that certificate verifying you were born, but not necessarily in the United States. And there is question that, at the time that he was born, his mother was not yet of age to transmit citizenship. You had to be 19, I think. If he was born in Hawaii, then he is a natural born citizen. If he was born somewhere else-and a question has been raised if his birth was in Kenya-then his mother would not have transmitted citizenship. One needs to verify that the certificate verifies the birthplace.

ESSENCE.COM: State officials from the health department of Hawaii have verified that they have Obama's birth records, and that he was indeed born in Hawaii. [The 10/31/08 statement never says the DOH is verifying any such thing, only that DOH has an original which appears authentic.] Do you think they're lying?
KEYES: I don't think anything. Just let it be verified. This is not something that should be taken on hearsay. This is the most important office. Everything should be done without controversy, in such a way that the Constitutional requirements are met. If something is contrary to the Constitutional requirement, then you have to do away with that. It's not on Obama to do this. The folks with whom this burden presently rests are the officials who are now responsible for the process, who sit on the Supreme Court and other areas. They have to abide by their oaths to preserve and defend the Constitution, and not have him entering into office with a question they refuse to resolve.

ESSENCE.COM: Why didn't you bring this up earlier, during the campaign? Why wait until two months before the inauguration?
KEYES: The election is the time when the people make the judgment, not government officials. The problem in this case is, Obama was not properly vetted-by the media, or other individuals-during the campaign. They refused to look at it. People went to the polls with the issue unresolved. Once the electoral process is done, then the responsibility for certifying the results and making sure it's all according to the Constitution rests on the officials. So we're at a different stage of the process. I don't believe it would be a good idea to turn to the government to establish the qualifications of people who are running for office. That could be abused to limit the options of the people. If people are behaving with integrity, these facts would come out and then people would be able to make their judgment. This didn't happen.

ESSENCE.COM: To a lot of people, your lawsuit looks like a case of sour grapes because you lost. Your response?
KEYES: I think politics is irrelevant to this, actually. I don't see how it is showing fondness for Barack Obama to let him enter into office with a question that could be raised. He should not have to operate under that burden. I think the officials need to clear the air for his sake. From my point of view, it is a bad idea to have a president of the United States enter office with a cloud hanging over his head, where every time he tries to do something, he would end up frittering away time because of that objection. So let's get it over with. Let's resolve it and move forward with a clear and undisturbed mandate for the new president.

ESSENCE.COM: For argument's sake, let's say Obama is only a naturalized citizen, and was raised by Americans and grew up in the United States. What difference does that make to you?
KEYES: It makes a difference to the Constitution. The Constitution has to be obeyed. If we get into a position where it is somehow regarded as dispensable then this country will fall apart. Black people should be the first folks to remember that. Without adherence to the Constitution our battles would have never been won. I don't want to live in a country where we are suddenly back in a world where the force of majority rules. I don't think any of us do.

ESSENCE.COM: Would you be in support of amending that section of the Constitution?
KEYES: No, I would most certainly not. Today we are in more danger as a people of being subverted by foreign powers than we were when it was founded. It is possible, under our present rules in America, for folks from another country to come visit America, to have a child here, to take that child back to wherever, raise that child there, and that child would be an American citizen. Do we really think it would be right to have a person who has not lived in America, does not identify with our people, to run here as president of the United States?

ESSENCE.COM: That's a different situation from what's being questioned about Barack Obama.
KEYES: Rules have to be written in general. You can't write a rule in every particular case. The rules established in the Constitution are general rules that have been abided by people throughout the history of this country. People have been excluded from running for president, people like Arnold Schwarzenegger. One has to think of the common good. This isn't a question of individuals anymore. The key thing about the presidency, in my opinion, is that the person above all takes responsibility for the common good of the country. Our public officials do not swear allegiance to a country; they swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's something to be taken very seriously. Those are the rules.

ESSENCE.COM: For argument's sake, let's say Obama is only a naturalized citizen, and was raised by Americans and grew up in the United States. What difference does that make to you?
KEYES: It makes a difference to the Constitution. The Constitution has to be obeyed. If we get into a position where it is somehow regarded as dispensable then this country will fall apart. Black people should be the first folks to remember that. Without adherence to the Constitution our battles would have never been won. I don't want to live in a country where we are suddenly back in a world where the force of majority rules. I don't think any of us do.

Wow, the next time I am accused of being against obama because of the color of his skin, I am going to paraphrase this one. Powerful.