I am going to predicate this post with a request. Skip over it for now and go to the bottom in other news and opinion. Stopping health care reform in its current state is more important at this time. Read the stories you find there and then come back and read this story. Civic duty first. If Obama is shown to be ineligible to server then all bills he signs will be null-and-void. But that must wait for another day. The courts are moving forward on the birth certificate issue and those who question Obama’s eligibility to serve are gaining in credibility every day.

_____________________

Before summarily dismissing this case, look at the facts:

• Obama is deliberately hiding multiple documents, including a letter written to Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children, which claims it received a letter from the president declaring his birth there. Robert Gibbs refused to confirm that the letter which was used by the hospital to solicit donations is, in fact, a real correspondence.
• Wikipedia says Obama born in Kenya. Check out how quickly and how often statements about Obama shifted throughout the day until settling on Hawaii as the only possible birth place.
• When WND exposed doubts about the authenticity of the letter because it was created with HTML computer code and had no presidential or White House seal, the hospital which for nearly six months proudly declared Obama was born at its facility commenced an active cover-up, hiding that White House letter from its original webpage and refusing to confirm such a letter actually exists.
• There are at least two reports citing Obama’s birth in Kenya.
• And that came on the heels of several online information sites changing the president’s supposed birthplace from one hospital in Hawaii to another, after WND broke the news of the letter said to be from the White House.
• Barack Obama has refused to do something very simple – release his long-form birth certificate. Something easily accomplished with the stroke of a pen
• There has been at or slightly above 1 million dollars spent on sealing these documents from public view.
• While honest mistakes are often made, the Ghana Daily Graphic quoted Ghana’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alhaji Mohammed Mumuni “It is expected that President Obama will make a major foreign policy statement on Africa”. The paper then went on to state that for Ghana, Obama’s visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth.

Just because Shepherd Smith calls those who question Obama’s eligibility “crazy” does not make it so. And those basing their interpretation of these events based solely on one man’s judgment forfeit their right to call themselves critical and objective thinkers.

From Right Side News: Judge Decides Obama’s Eligibility is a ‘Serious’ Question

One of the many cases brought against Barack Obama challenging his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States has a U.S. Magistrate, Judge Joel Schneider of Camden, N.J. describing the dispute as a “serious” constitutional issue. The Judge is now adding letters of comment from the public to the court record.

The report of this action by Judge Joel Schneider is made by Attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the Kerchner vs. Obama case, which Apuzzo filed in January, 2009.

Attorney Apuzzo filed the lawsuit, naming as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Dick Cheney.

This case alleges failure of the Congress to follow the Constitution, stating that the Constitution “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

“There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified,”

The suit further says “Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them,” continuing with, the defendants “violated” the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements,”

“Plaintiffs’ complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in this case is not simple and straightforward,” the Judge indicating that this is indeed serious enough he feels that Obama, the Congress, the Senate, the House, Pelosi and the rest need sufficient time to get their representation lined up.

WND reports:

The defendants “violated” the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements,” the lawsuit said.

Apuzzo told WND that while the judge recently granted the government extra time to line up defense counsel for the named defendants, his ruling described the issue as a serious constitutional question.

“Plaintiffs’ complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in this case is not simple and straightforward,” the judge said.

But as soon as attorneys are lined up, “the case will proceed expeditiously,” he said.

The case has attracted numerous public comments directed at and delivered to the judge, who has started adding them to the case file, Apuzzo noted.

“It’s unbelievable,” he said. “The court put the letters on Pacer.”

Pacer is a fee-based court website through which interested parties can research cases and their documentation.

“This is really strange,” said the attorney, noting that judges typically do not accept or even acknowledge public commentary on cases that are pending before them.

“The point is the letters are there in the docket,” he said.

I still think the question of Obama’s eligibility deserves its day in court without being dismissed. If a judgment requiring Obama to provide access to his long form birth certificate is appealed, that should raise serious questions. Obama should be forced to provide access to any and all records pertaining to his birth so we can just put all of this to rest.

Check out a video from The Michigan Grapevine.

In other news and opinion:

Michelle Malkin reports Obamacare in the House: Do the Blue Dogs have any bite?. Call those phone numbers she has listed.

“Centrist” Democrats in the House say they oppose the government health care takeover plans of their leaders and their president.

They’re barking loudly, demanding major amendments to protect small businesses and taxpayers.

But do the Blue Dogs have any bite? Or will they be bought off like many of them were on cap-and-trade and Porkulus One?

Also read Michelle’s Socialized health care and the death of choice

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has a doozy. Seems like the House health care plan implicitly outlaws private insurance:

Investors Business Daily’s editors quickly read through the actual legislation of the House health-care reform bill looking for hidden time bombs — and they found a doozy. On page 16 of over a thousand pages of text, they discovered a clause that essentially locks people into their current plan, and locks everyone out of any other plan. Well, presumably the public plan will be an exception:

From IBD:

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

Ed continues:

Surprise! You can, as Obama promised, keep your current coverage — as long as it remains available. However, if your employer stops offering health-care benefits, or if you buy it privately and your insurer cancels your plan, you can’t just pick up another private plan. Enrollments will be closed as of the first day the bill becomes law.

That will have the effect of forcing millions of people into the public plan whether they want it or not. Even worse, if insurers get barred from attracting new customers — which this clause outlaws — then they will eventually see their rolls drained, thanks to the natural flow of the market as employers drop plans and skip the expense of offering medical insurance. It won’t take long at all for insurers to exit the market and leave the field for just the public plan, which will automatically get the customers of each individual insurer as they close up shop.

Over at the Hill: Blue Dogs threaten to bring down Pelosi’s healthcare bill

Centrist Democrats are threatening to oppose their party’s healthcare legislation unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accepts changes that make the bill more to their liking.

Seven Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have banded together to draft amendments that they’ll co-sponsor in the committee markup, which starts Thursday. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the Blue Dogs’ point man on healthcare, says if those changes aren’t accepted, they’ll vote down the bill.

“We cannot support the current bill,” Ross said. “Last time I checked, it took seven Democrats to stop a bill in Energy and Commerce.”

Ross knows of three additional Democrats on the committee who won’t support the bill in its current form, creating a base of 10 Democratic opponents. The committee has 59 members: 23 Republicans and 36 Democrats.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said he’s aware of the centrists’ concerns and is prepared to make changes even before the committee starts voting.

“Can a bunch of members bring a bill down? Sure,” Waxman said. “What we need to do is work together to pass a bill.”