Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

<table width="650" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"> Birther debate alive across U.S.

By: Andy Barr
February 14, 2011 04:23 AM EST
</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="story" valign="top">The opening of 2011 state legislative sessions has been accompanied by a spate of birther-related bills, the clearest indication yet that the controversy surrounding President Barack Obama?s place of birth will continue to simmer throughout his reelection campaign.

Lawmakers in at least 10 states have introduced bills requiring presidential candidates to provide some form of proof that they are natural-born citizens, a ballot qualification rule designed to address widespread rumors on the right that Obama was not born in the United States.

The notion that Obama does not meet constitutional qualifications to be president has dogged him since the early stages of the 2008 race, despite his campaign?s posting online his certificate of live birth in the state of Hawaii.

The birther controversy resurfaced in recent weeks when newly elected Hawaii Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a friend of Obama?s parents, promised to investigate the issue and finally put to rest rumors that he was born in Kenya or Indonesia. Abercrombie later backtracked, citing the state?s privacy laws.

So far, the conservative conspiracy theorists who have pushed national media campaigns and numerous legal challenges questioning the president?s eligibility have met little success.

At the state level, however, the issue continues to fester. This year?s bills, if passed, would create a requirement for presidential campaigns to prove candidates? place of birth, a proviso that sponsors say would finally clear up the matter.

Election law attorneys say that if the bills are passed, states may be able to kick presidential candidates off the ballot for not complying ? though a legal challenge would be very likely.

?The Constitution gives state legislatures plenary power to set the rules for choosing presidential electors. A state legislature, in theory, as Bush v. Gore acknowledges, could even take away the popular vote for the president and decide on the choice itself,? said Rick Hasen, a law professor and author of the respected Election Law blog.

Cleta Mitchell, a conservative election lawyer, made similar comments, arguing that ?states have had latitude historically to require filing fees, signatures on petitions and other ministerial procedures ? and providing a birth certificate verifying a person?s constitutional qualifications of age and citizenship seems perfectly reasonable.?

The bills vary in terms of how election officials would sign off on the ballot eligibility of presidential candidates, a process that would be triggered by a presidential campaign?s application to get on the primary ballot. Some measures, such as one in Connecticut, would require the secretary of state to view the original birth certificate, while others would require an affidavit providing documentation of a candidate?s name and place of birth.

?We don?t think the president was vetted, and it?s just that simple,? Texas GOP state Rep. Leo Berman said, adding that he doesn?t know whether Obama is ?a citizen or not? but that he believes the question has not been fully examined.

?I read different things that say he was born in Hawaii, and then I read the governor can?t find anything that says he was born in Hawaii,? Berman added. ?Why the president won?t show a birth certificate is beyond me.?

Berman said that he?s received ?the foulest e-mails I have ever seen in my life? since introducing the bill, but contended he has a significant amount of support ? if not yet a large number of co-sponsors ? within the Texas Legislature.

?My colleagues love it,? he said, adding that his bill will ?pass overwhelmingly in the House.? But Berman predicted that Democrats in the state Senate would block the bill from getting the two-thirds majority it needs to pass.

In Oklahoma, Ralph Shortey is one of three Republican state senators who have introduced bills seeking proof of birth from presidential candidates, and, like Berman, said he doesn?t know if the president was born in the country.

?I don?t know one way or the other because I?ve not seen evidence one way or the other,? Shortey said, contending that the bill isn?t necessarily about Obama. ?To be honest, I don?t care [if the president is a citizen]. He?s our president, and we elected him, whether he?s qualified or not.?

The Oklahoman said his bill is not so much about the birther argument as it is about the questions that prompted the theory.

?In Oklahoma, we can guarantee at every elected level that the candidate is qualified, except for president,? he said. ?We need to ensure that the people on [the] ballot are legitimate candidates. ... If 10 states are taking on this issue, it seems to me that it?s a serious enough issue to have called attention to itself.?

Missouri GOP state Rep. Lyle Rowland framed his own bill as a check against illegal immigration.

?We have problems with illegal immigrants. And if something were to happen where one of them became popular with the people, we need documents proving if they are a citizen,? said Rowland, who believes Obama is a ?natural citizen of the United States.?

Hawaii Democrats are working on birther-influenced legislation of their own, designed, at least, to produce some revenue for the state?s trouble with the birthers. A new bill would allow the state?s Department of Health to provide copies of some of the president?s birth records ? which the state had stopped doing during the height of birther activity ? in return for a $100 fee.

Because many states where the bills have been proposed are only beginning their sessions, the prospects for passage are unclear.

Arizona?s seems the most likely to pick up momentum, as a similar bill was approved last year by its House before failing in the Senate. Both chambers were, and remain, under GOP control. The bill already has enough co-sponsors to pass the House again, and the support of the Republican majority leader in the Senate makes it quite likely that the measure will at least be brought to the floor.

Arizona GOP Gov. Jan Brewer did not take a position on the bill last year and hasn?t done so this year either. Republican state Rep. Judy Burges, who sponsored the bill both times, did not respond to requests for comment.

The bills in each state have been attacked by Democrats, who dismiss the birther movement as a collection of Obama-obsessed wing nuts.

Bill sponsors interviewed by POLITICO said they had not communicated with each other or any national group, though some said they were influenced by news reports on bills in other states.

?I read about it and thought, ?Why shouldn?t we do this? This sounds like a good idea,?? said Connecticut GOP state Sen. Michael McLachlan.

McLachlan conceded that his bill doesn?t stand much chance of passing the state?s Democratic-controlled Legislature, but said he hasn?t been deterred by opposition.

?The issue just doesn?t want to go away,? he said. ?Some people are insistent that President Obama isn?t qualified to run because he wasn?t born in the United States. Why don?t we just put the whole issue to rest??
</td></tr></tbody></table>
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

NBC?s David Gregory Worries about Legitimacy of Obama Presidency

By Cliff Kincaid | February 14, 2011

Gregory wondered if all the doubts about Obama were undermining his legitimacy as President.

NBC ?Meet the Press? Host David Gregory berated House Speaker John Boehner on Sunday because members of the public and the Congress have doubts about President Obama?s professed Christian faith and alleged birth in the United States. Gregory wondered if all the doubts about Obama were undermining his legitimacy as President. He wanted Boehner to denounce these questions and concerns as ?ignorance.? Boehner refused to do so.

?There was something that caught my eye this week that was on Fox News on the Hannity program, a focus group with voters in Iowa led by Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist, and he had this exchange with them,? he told Boehner.

The videotape that followed showed several people declaring that Obama was a Muslim.

Gregory was flabbergasted. He said to Boehner: ?As the speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it?s your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance??

In fact, as AIM has noted, calling yourself something is not the same thing as proving it is the case. Obama?s Christian claim deserves to be scrutinized, even when it involves a sensitive and personal matter such as religious belief. Our media are supposed to question the statements of those in power.

The facts show that there is no evidence that Obama was baptized in a traditional Christian sense of the term. Indeed, Muslims could join the church in Chicago that Obama attended.

Boehner said that it wasn?t his job ?to tell the American people what to think? and that he accepts the President?s claim that he is a Christian. Gregory said such a response was playing ?fast and loose? with the ?obvious facts.? Boehner replied, ?I just outlined the facts as I understand them. I believe that the President is a citizen. I believe the President is a Christian. I?ll take him at his word.?

Here are the facts, from Obama?s own perspective. Obama acknowledges in Dreams from My Father that his grandfather was a Muslim (page 104) and that he spent two years in a Muslim school in Indonesia studying the Koran (page 154). In The Audacity of Hope, he says (page 204) that ?my father had been raised a Muslim? but that by the time he met his mother, his father was a ?confirmed atheist.? His stepfather was not particularly religious and his mother professed ?secularism,? Obama wrote (pages 204-205), but as a child he went to a ?predominantly Muslim school,? after being first sent to a Catholic school. His mother, he said, was concerned about him learning math, not religion.

Refusing to provide the facts about Obama?s Muslim upbringing to his audience, Gregory moved on to the birth certificate issue.

Gregory was particularly concerned that ?a new tea party freshman who was out just yesterday speaking to conservatives?said, ?I?m fortunate enough to be an American citizen by birth, and I do have a birth certificate to prove it.??

?That was Raul Labrador, a new congressman from Idaho. Is that an appropriate way for your members to speak?? Gregory demanded. He wanted to know why Boehner isn?t standing up to ?misinformation? and ?stereotypes.?

With this comment, Gregory proved not only that he is a sycophant for Obama, but that he doesn?t have a sense of humor. Labrador?s comments to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) were obviously in jest, although he was making a serious point. Pro-Obama journalists have consistently ignored questions about the constitutional eligibility of the current occupant of the oval office.

Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.?

As we have pointed out, the problem is that this provision does not require public disclosure of detailed information, in the form of a birth certificate with the names of the parents, hospital, and attending physician, and it does not mandate who makes the decision as to whether a particular candidate is constitutionally eligible to be president.
Our media should be performing that function but they refuse to do so.

They have simply accepted a vague ?certification of live birth? from the Obama campaign as legitimate.

David Gregory is the ignorant one.
<hr>Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="800"><tbody><tr><td align="left">
Return to the Article</td><td valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
February 13, 2011

The Birther Card

By Cindy Simpson

Hawaii's new governor, Neil Abercrombie, stirred the "birther" pot just before Christmas when he promised to launch an expedition for Obama's long form birth certificate. Chris Matthews reported on the Abercrombie quest, and though calling himself an "enemy of the birthers," surprised us by acknowledging that the advertised short form is indeed a different document than an actual long form certificate and that it should be released. Matthews' guests on the segment agreed, noting once it was out they could "make even more fun of the birthers."

But less than a month later, when it was Abercrombie's turn to produce the long form, he turned up empty-handed, and instead offered some ambiguous lines about something "written down" that "actually exists."

Enter a new player to the game: journalist friend of Abercrombie, Mike Evans, on the radio a few days later touting "There is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii -- absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii." Evans backtracked after the story went national, saying he "misspoke" and had not conversed personally with Abercrombie, and that this error occurred in only one of the 34 interviews he had done that morning. Further research, however, found that Evans repeated his misstatement more than once and "appeared to be reading from a script and ad-libbing around it as he read."

In the American Thinker article, "The Birther Trial Balloon," it was speculated that perhaps this entire performance was a sort of media test run to see how the public would react to the non-release of the certificate in advance of Obama's run for 2012 reelection. Writer Andrew Walden, in the AT article, "Hawaii's Governor Manipulates Birthers," concluded that the spectacle was indeed a production, choreographed however for a different result: "to shift political discussion away from the thumping Obama took in the November midterms" by further ridiculing "birtherism."

Really, though, the debacle did seem more like an episode of The Three Stooges, especially with the timing of one little tidbit reported by CBS News a couple of days later -- that Abercrombie's new Health Director (responsible for the state's vital records) "abruptly quit." So, until that position is filled, the buck of maintaining Obama's birth certificate has stopped at Abercrombie's desk. (We can only speculate why, if the former Governor Linda Lingle asked the previous Health Director, Chiyome Fukino, to "go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health," couldn't Abercrombie authorize himself to do likewise.)

At any rate, it appeared the chips were down for the "birther enemies," so when it was back around the table last week for Chris Matthews' turn, he admitted that Obama has the "new kind" of birth certificate "which is this digital thing printed out" and apparently no long form. (Leaving the rest of us to wonder exactly what this newfangled one was the short version of.) And anyway, according to Matthews, people only ask to see the old-fashioned kind and put Obama under "this kind of assault" because...

Obama has a funny name, and he is black.

Matthews resorted to playing the trump from his standard liberal repertoire -- the race card, and swooped up all the chips while implying that the birthers aren't playing with a full deck and all their fuss is a bunch of "malarkey."

But Matthews isn't the only pundit playing this type of game -- conservative talkers have politely turned a blind eye to the birther story, and instead of dealing us any real investigating or reporting, play silently along and slap the hands of the birthers clamoring for a spot at the table. Birthers, unperturbed with all the eye-rolling and name-calling, stubbornly continue to interrupt the game anyway, and are not, as Matthews lamented, "shamed into non-existence."

Conservative politicians have all been good sports, too, beginning with John McCain, who produced his long-form certificate back in the 2008 race. McCain was deemed qualified as a "natural born citizen" by Senate Resolution 511 (co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), but then meekly folded without a call for Obama to reciprocate.

In his article, "Obama's Republican Guard," Jack Cashill opines that the lack of Republican political response on the birther controversy is due to a conservative media "gone soft," who "instead content themselves with commenting on the news that the mainstream media create."

Cashill didn't allude to racist accusations as a cause for the conservative avoidance of the "birther" issue, but the results of a quick Google search using the terms "birther" with "racism" reveal that the race card is indeed a large part of the story. The mainstream media leads with that card often, and conservatives' failure to call them out on it comes off as complicity in a game of political correctness, and weakness instead of colorblind sportsmanship. Americans are then unfairly dealt a censored reporting of a serious constitutional issue.

John Boehner, when pressed on the eligibility issue said: "The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That's good enough for me." That's not good enough, though, for a growing swath of the population, unwilling to give these leaders the excuse of a media gone soft, whatever the motivation of that softness. According to World Net Daily, "10 of the United States -- controlling 107 Electoral College votes -- are now considering some type of legislation" that requires presidential candidates to provide proof of constitutional eligibility.

Two of the states' proposed bills contain additional eligibility requirements that trump a long-form birth certificate, even a pricey $100 souvenir version crafted by Hawaii lawmakers. The Arizona bill requires: "A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America." The Nebraska bill further requires that the candidate attest to three conditions on the day of his birth: he was subject only to the jurisdiction of the U.S., owed allegiance to no other country, and that both his mother and father were U.S. citizens.

Dual citizenship, a divided allegiance that experts contend the Constitution's framers sought to avoid for the Presidency, is a status created when the country of a child's birth (documented by a birth certificate) and the country of citizenship of the parents are in conflict. Obviously the Arizona and Nebraska legislators concerned themselves with crafting laws supporting the Constitution's finer points of eligibility rather than the sensational search for the missing long form.

Unless Obama pulls out a certificate listing a birth father other than the one Abercrombie remembers seeing him with as a child, or reneges on the assertion on his "Fight the Smears" campaign website that he had, until age 23, foreign citizenship from his Kenyan father, he won't qualify for the ballots in these two states.

So far, the media has focused only on the requirement for the long form and fretted over its assorted details, but once they catch on to these other provisions, the ensuing stir will no doubt require a play of both the racist and xenophobia cards, just as we've seen in the recent immigration reform debate.

Voters are successfully getting the message to their state legislatures: They need more information to "come to the conclusion of [Obama's] citizenship" than just seeing or hearing the President (Wouldn't we love to ask Robert Gibbs exactly what he meant by "seeing.").

As we near the 2012 elections, the powerful in conservative circles must acknowledge the birther controversy if for no other reason than the political risk of alienating this substantial percentage of voters with doubts as to Obama's constitutional eligibility.

In the American Thinker article, "The Race Game and Obama's Campaign for 2012," Jack Kerwick noted that "race promises to play at least as large a role in the next election as it played in the last presidential race. Rest assured: it is on this that Barack Obama and his cronies are counting." Kerwick rightly concludes: "If the GOP wants to prevail in the election of 2012, it is imperative that they muster the will to reckon with its racial subtext."

The GOP must also muster the will to reckon with the mainstream media. Instead of constantly playing defense by allowing liberals to initiate and control the conversation, Republicans must begin to lead a rational discourse. They do not need to follow suit when the media or Obama and his team attempt to link questions of constitutionality with lack of civility or racism.

Conservatives cannot continue to sidestep the role of race in both its response to the eligibility dilemma and in the upcoming elections. Liberals have shown they aren't reluctant to play the race card in any game.

Page Printed from: American Thinker: The Birther Card at February 14, 2011 - 05:35:09 PM CST
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

<input value="pub-8046866061614799" name="client" type="hidden"><input value="1" name="forid" type="hidden"><input value="ISO-8859-1" name="ie" type="hidden"><input value="ISO-8859-1" name="oe" type="hidden"><input value="GALT:#003324;GL:1;DIV:#66CC99;VLC:FF6600;AH:center;BGC:C5DBCF;LBGC:73B59C;ALC:000000;LC:000000;T:330033;GFNT:333300;GIMP:333300;FORID:1;" name="cof" type="hidden"><input value="en" name="hl" type="hidden">http://www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogID=30316379&widgetType=HTML&widgetId=HTML4&action=editWidgetMonday, February 14, 2011

A Message to the SCOTUS: Stop Avoiding the Eligibility Issue
<b><big> A veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system." </big></b> ?Bob Unruh, Worldnetdaily​
It is the 3,000 lb gorilla in the middle of American politics. Is Barry Hussein Soetoro eligible to be president of the United States of America? And if he isn?t, why is everyone who has a sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States allowing an illegitimate Usurper to continue his personal quest to undermine the fundamental principles of a Constitution-based federal republic form of government rather than protect the constitution, which is their sworn oath to do? (see story)

What is absolutely true and in the words of former President Clinton?s U.S. counter terrorism official Richard Clarke. Our government has failed us. Moreover, it is continuing to fail us on the must import constitutional question to come about in the history of the United States of America. Is Barry Hussein Soetoro Constitutionally qualified to be Commander-in-Chief of this nation?

It is on this question, which the fate of our nation turns. This question will determine whether we will continue on as a Constructional-based federal republic or whether we will devolve into something, which exists only in the mind of a man and his likes that have obvious penis envy of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Trotsky.

Media, Senators, Congressmen and Congresswomen, Judges and Justices all have played along with and are complicit in capitulating to one man?s and one Party?s assault on the very framework which distinguishes this nation from Communists, Socialists, Religious and Banana Republic disasters that consider themselves governments.

May I remind you that this nation, a constitutional republic, is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. And this is a good thing.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.?Wikipedia (source)


When a man or Oligarchy chooses to work outside of or above the constitutional charter this is a bad thing. This is the very thing that is alleged of Barry Hussein Soetoro regarding his failure to clear up the questions concerning his eligibility or lack thereof.

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.?Article 2 Section1, U.S. Constitution


This is also the case if the surrounding powers, the Legislative and the Judiciary, branches that are both aware of a possible gross Constitutional violation, but chose to ignore the constitutional violation on grounds that it is much too uncomfortable to deal with.

It is no secret that this president holds the constitution in contempt. He views it as a Negative restrictive antiquated document that is against tyrannical government. (hear 1:45min audio)

Negative Constitution

<center> </center>As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn?t that radical. It didn?t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution.

At least it?s been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that?that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can?t do to you, says what the federal government can?t do to you but it doesn?t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn?t shifted.?Barry Hussein Soetoro

President Soetoro has said that the Constitution is flawed and everything that he is doing indicates that he and his presidency are engaged in changing what he believes are the constitution?s flawed orientation of ?negative liberties.? Soetoro wishes to change what he considers negative into that of ?Positive Subjugation? of your thoughts and your actions. (see 1:29min video)

<center></center>This president believes that the Constitution can be interpreted many ways. As a result, he is in the process of stacking the court with politicos who will interpret the constitution in-line with his beliefs rather than the principle of considering the Founders' intent. (see :21sec video)

<center></center>It is also true that this president holds the present Conservatives on the Supreme Court and its current 5 to 4 Conservative make-up in contempt. It is my personal belief that he has already co-opted a major Conservative on the Court thereby almost ensuring that the court will not hear any eligibility questions until a Conservative president appoints a true Conservative to replace any liberal or compromised Conservative. (see 2:09 min video)

Soetoro shows contempt for Supreme Court Justices

<center></center>We must know whether Chief Justice Roberts and the Supremes are still committed to the principle of considering the Founders' intent when ruling on constitutional issues. Or we must know whether they share the president?s views that the founders and the document, which they passed on to us, are flawed and outdated.

Thereby giving certain citizens the right to disregard all or part of the constitution as this president has chosen to do regarding immigration laws, violating person sovereignty and rights by unconstitutional attempting to force Americans to buy healthcare and by disregarding Article 2 section 1 of the eligibility cause of the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court continues to avoid the eligibility issue, they will be responsible for an Egypt like response to what people will perceive as a totally corrupt government.

Posted by Alaphiah at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://creatingorwellianworld-view-alaphiah.blogspot.com/2011/02/message-to-scotus-stop-avoiding.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" title="2011-02-14T03:30:00-08:00">3:30 AM</abbr>
Labels: Supremes decide between constitution or corruption
 
T

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

I cannot see anything after Joe's post?Is it just me?
 
Blondie

Blondie

EOG Master
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

Such insightful posts...
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

Poll: Majority of Republicans Doubt Obama's Birthplace

A slim majority of Republicans are still in disbelief that President Barack Obama, now in his third year in office, was born in the United States and therefore is legally eligible to be president, according to a poll by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.

The survey looked at whom these ?birthers? prefer in the 2012 Republican presidential primary contest. Among the 51 percent of Republicans who think Obama was born outside of America, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was preferred by 24 percent, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by 19 percent, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) by 14 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 11 percent.
Romney?s performance improves greatly among the 49 percent who think Obama was born here or are not sure. He takes 23 percent among that group compared with 16 percent for Huckabee, 11 percent for Palin and 10 percent for Gingrich.

Huckabee leads with 20 percent support among Republicans overall, followed by Romney with 17 percent, Palin with 15 percent and Gingrich with 12 percent.

The nationwide survey was conducted Feb. 11-13 among 400 Republican primary voters with a 4.9-point margin of error.

For more from our At the Races politics blog, click here.
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Public Policy Polling: Majority of Republicans Doubt Obama's Eligibility to be President; That Would Be 72% Bill 'Pinhead' O'Reilly!

ObamaRelease YourRecords on <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/02/public-policy-polling-majority-of.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" title="2011-02-15T11:04:00-08:00">11:04 AM</abbr>
[updated] Via the Public Policy Polling and Some; - Romney and the Birthers - By Tom Jensen -


​
Birtherism is alive and well within the GOP ranks, and their 2012 nominee preferences tell a story about the difficulty Mitt Romney faces in trying to appeal to an electorate that's a whole lot further out there than he is.

Birthers make a majority among those voters who say they're likely to participate in a Republican primary next year. 51% say they don't think Barack Obama was born in the United States to just 28% who firmly believe that he was and 21% who are unsure. The GOP birther majority is a new development. The last time PPP tested this question nationally, in August of 2009, only 44% of Republicans said they thought Obama was born outside the country while 36% said that he definitely was born in the United States. If anything birtherism is on the rise.

How does this impact Romney? Well among the 49% of GOP primary voters who either think Obama was born in the United States or aren't sure, Romney's the first choice to be the 2012 nominee by a good amount, getting 23% to 16% for Mike Huckabee, 11% for Sarah Palin, and 10% for Newt Gingrich. But with the birther majority he's in a distant fourth place at 11%, with Mike Huckabee at 24%, Sarah Palin at 19%, and Newt Gingrich at 14% all ahead of him. That pushes him into a second place finish overall at 17% with Mike Huckabee again leading the way this month at 20%. Palin's third with 15%, followed by Gingrich at 12%, Ron Paul at 8%, Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty at 4%, and John Thune at 1%. -Full Poll here. ...Report continued here; http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/02/romney-and-birthers.html

Via Roll Call; - Majority of Republicans Doubt Obama's Birthplace - By Kyle Trygstad -

A slim majority of Republicans are still in disbelief that President Barack Obama, now in his third year in office, was born in the United States and therefore is legally eligible to be president, according to a poll by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.

The survey looked at whom these ?birthers? prefer in the 2012 Republican presidential primary contest. Among the 51 percent of Republicans who think Obama was born outside of America, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was preferred by 24 percent, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by 19 percent, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) by 14 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 11 percent. ...Continued here; http://www.rollcall.com/news/Poll-Majority-GOP-Birthers-203418-1.html

UPDATE: Video: Birther Fever Grows; MSNBC's Chris Matthews, et al., Bashes the Birthers AKA the Majority of Americans and 72% of the Republicans. -Video here.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.



House Speaker John Boehner Refuses to Denounce Birthers - 2/13/2011 - Source.



Chris Matthews: Apparently Obama Does Not Have Hawaiian Long-Form Birth Certificate - 1/31/11 - Source.



Bonus: In 2007 on MSNBC Chris "Old School Birther" Matthews said Obama was born in Indonesia and has Islamic background, Got Hypocrite!? -Details here.

New Washington Times Ad: Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States - 14 Feb 2011 Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5 -Source, embedded below...

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Americans' questions about Obama eligibility surge

[/FONT] [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Coming book rockets up Amazon rankings on Drudge Report posting

[/FONT] <hr size="1"> [SIZE=-1]Posted: February 16, 2011
8:24 pm Eastern

[/SIZE] [FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Bob Unruh[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] ? 2011 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]

<table align="right" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="192">
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Americans' questions about the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility surged today after the image of a still-coming book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President," was posted on the Drudge Report.
The image, without even a link to the book, which is available for purchase in the WND SuperStore now although it will not ship until its May 17 release date, pushed it up the Amazon.com rankings from the obscure levels of unpublished works to the 500s by the middle of the day.
Drudge Report posted the image to accompany a Roll Call story on a new poll revealing that a majority of the members of the GOP "doubt" Obama's birthplace story.
WND's own story on the poll by Public Policy Polling revealed that only 3 in 10 members of the GOP believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States.
With the issue still disputed in a number of court cases and under review by nearly a dozen states considering laws that presidential candidates document their constitutional eligibility, the poll showed only 28 percent of the Republicans surveyed believe Obama was born in the U.S. while 51 percent do not.
Another 21 percent say they are not sure.
Order it now! The definitive look at Barack Obama, in "Where's the Birth Certificate?" by Dr. Jerome Corsi.
"Any thought that the birther theory has been put to rest can be thrown out the window," Dean Debnam, the president of the Democratic-leaning polling firm, told Politico.
<table align="center" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="622">
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
"That view is still widely held in Republican circles," he said.
(Story continues below)
<table><tbody><tr><td valign="top">

</td><td width="10"> </td><td valign="top"> <ins style="width: 300px; height: 250px; border: 0pt none; display: inline-table; position: relative;"><ins style="width: 300px; height: 250px; border: 0pt none; display: block; position: relative;"></ins></ins>

</td><td width="10"> </td></tr></tbody></table>
Chris Matthews, host of "Hardball" on MSNBC, discussed the stunning poll numbers on his program last night, perplexed by the growing tide of those questioning Obama's eligibility.

The book outlines the results of more than three years of research, and the resulting evidence that Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be president.
Corsi, a New York Times best-selling author, Harvard graduate, and investigative journalist, exposes in detail key issues with Obama's eligibility, including the fact the president has spent millions of dollars in legal fees to avoid providing the American people with something as simple as a long-form birth certificate.
The eligibility issue has major ramifications for every American, and through Corsi's in-depth research, a clear, concise, and compelling case is made for a return to Founding Father principles and transparent, constitutional government, starting from the top down.
Mid-morning shortly after the image was posted on Drudge, the book was ranked at No. 2,536 of all books on Amazon, including No. 2 at elections books, and No. 5 in constitutional law.
By shortly after lunch the book had risen to No. 596 among all books, and was No. 1 in elections, No. 2 in nonfiction-law and No. 3 in executive branch books.
<table align="center" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="625">
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
The poll is the latest in a trend of growing concern about Obama.
It was only a few months after Obama's inauguration that a WND/Wenzel Poll showed that 51.3 percent of Americans said they were aware of the questions raised about Obama's constitutional eligibility for office. Only 18.7 percent said they were not and another 30 percent were unsure.
At that point, 58.2 percent of the GOP said they were aware of the controversy.
Polls since then have shown Americans to be increasingly skeptical of Obama's official narrative:


  • A survey by Angus Reid Global Monitor, a division of Vision Critical Group, in October 2009 found three in 10 people in the U.S. believed Obama to be a foreigner.

    "While only 13 percent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 percent among independents and 51 percent among Republican Party backers," the report said.
  • Then in January 2010, another WND/Wenzel Poll revealed on the one-year anniversary of Obama's tenure in office that fully one-third of Americans refused to believe Obama was a "legitimate president," with another 15.8 percent saying they were not sure.

    Barely half the voters, 51.5 percent, said they believed the president legitimate even though he had not yet produced the documentation proving his constitutional eligibility. Even 14.6 percent of the Democrats said they did not consider him legitimate.
  • In May 2010, a WND/Wenzel Poll revealed that 55 percent of Americans wanted Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including "college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation."

    "Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed," the poll's analysis revealed.
  • By last June, other media were beginning to put their toes in the waters of the controversy. A 60 Minutes-Vanity Fair poll revealed only 39 percent of respondents believe Obama was born in Hawaii as he claimed in his book.

    "A shocking 63 percent ? very nearly two-thirds of us ? went out on a limb and stated for the record that we believe in the United States. It's enough to make you proud to be an American ? or 63 percent proud, at any rate."

    But that figure included those who said they believe he was born in Kansas or some other unknown state, which still would conflict with Obama's story.
  • Last August, a poll by CNN said 6 of 10 people were uncertain Obama was born in the U.S. The poll said only 42 percent believe Obama "definitely" was born in the U.S.

    The CNN report said that, "Hawaii has released a copy of the president's birth certificate ? officially called a 'certificate of live birth.' And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama's birth."

    However, the online image released by the Obama campaign during his presidential race actually is called a "Certification of Live Birth," and those documents under the rules in the state of Hawaii were available for children not born in the state.
The newest poll from Public Policy Polling revealed 51 percent of 400 Republican primary voters disbelieve Obama's claims to be eligible constitutionally to hold the office of president and another 21 percent said they were not sure.
According to the poll, GOP voters also are putting Mike Huckabee at the top of the national field of candidates for the GOP nomination for president in 2012, following by Mitt Romney.
The Politico report editorialized: "A 51 percent majority of national GOP primary voters erroneously think President Obama was not born in the U.S. 28 percent know that he was."
Questions about Obama's eligibility to be president have been exacerbated by his refusal to answer questions and release ordinary background documentation and his extraordinary legal maneuvers to keep his background hidden.
The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural-born citizen," which is not the same as a "citizen."
Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies has warned, "Simply put, this question about Obama's legitimacy as president is undermining everything he does in the minds of millions of Americans."


Read more: Americans' questions about Obama eligibility surge Americans' questions about Obama eligibility surge
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]BORN IN THE USA?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
[/FONT][FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court

[/FONT] <hr size="1"> [SIZE=-1]Posted: February 17, 2011
2:23 pm Eastern

[/SIZE] [FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Bob Unruh[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] ? 2011 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]



In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col.

Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.
It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Available to order now! The definitive answer on Obama's eligibility, in "Where's The Birth Certificate?" by New York Times best-selling author Dr. Jerome Corsi.

Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He also argued that if court members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."

"We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.

<table align="left" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="307">
Case motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.

"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND's request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans.

"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."

That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.
<table align="right" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="309">
Docketing information from Supreme Court</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

The video:

Hemenway's arguments came in the petition for rehearing that followed the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments.

However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.

That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.

Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Kagan and Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.


Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.

"Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court," said the document, submitted to the court.

"Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, 'as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought ? and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.' Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners' petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion," Hemenway wrote.

"Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure," the brief explains.

"If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate," the brief states.

The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered "the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president 'be' a 'natural born citizen.'"



The argument continued, "Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners' motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase 'natural born citizen.'

"That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country," the filing said.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.

"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.

"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.

"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.

Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.

It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.

WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

<table align="center" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="636">
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.

Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.

Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."

It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.

"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.

Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.

"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.

<table align="right" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="200">
Judge James Robertso
n</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "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."

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."

"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.
"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,?' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.

Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.
"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.

"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order ? If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound ? to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.
The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has 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."

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.

Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

Blue Team Action Item: Research why the Supreme Court is compelled to hold a new hearing on Obama?s eligibility to hold the presidency
Posted by kevindujan01 under Action Items | Tags: Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Gerald Ford, Obama's adoption, Soetobakh Soetoro, What was Gerald Ford's birth name? |
[23] Comments

Drudge has linked this story from World Net Daily that notes the odd decision by the Supreme Court to hold a new ?conference? on Obama?s eligibility to hold the presidency.

Let?s research WHY the court could be compelled to do this.

It MUST have something to do with the fact that Obama has no birth certificate on file in the Hawaiian Hall of Records with the name ?Barack Hussein Obama? on it ? since his original Hawaiian birth certificate with that name was sealed in the 1970s when he was adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather. At the time of adoption, a child?s original birth certificate is sealed away and replaced in the Hall of Records by a new birth certificate that bears the adopted parents? names and the child?s new name, if a new name is given.

This is what happened to Obama, when he was renamed ?Soetobakh? by his mother and stepfather at the time of adoption.

In Indonesia, there are no last names. The man who adopted Obama is routinely called ?Lolo Soetoro?, but in reality his name in Indonesia is just Soetoro. ?Lolo? is a nickname ? but on documents in the West, Soetoro seems to have used the name ?Lolo Soetoro? because he needed to complete a first and last name line on documentation.

There are a couple names that could appear on the birth certificate Hawaii has on file for the current US President because of the odd circumstances involved in Indonesian names. Here are a few options:

* Soetobakh Dunham
* Soetobakh Soetoro
* Barry Soetoro
* Soetoro Soetobakh

The reason Obama has spent so much time and money hiding his original birth certificate is because his adoption in the 1970s, and the bizarre, Klingon-sounding name ?Soetobakh? are just so strange and difficult to explain to Americans.

I know in comments on this thread another debate will emerge about what happens to a child when he is adopted, and I will continue to maintain that the child?s original birth certificate that was created on the day he was born is removed from the Hall of Records and sealed by court order?with a new birth certificate created and filed in its place that changes the parents? names to that of the adoptive parents, altering the child?s original name as well if the parents renamed him during the adoption.

I insist this because I have several friends who are adopted, as well as friends who have adopted children. In all of these instances, the children?s adopted names are on the long form birth certificates on file for them in their respective states. Additionally, the adoptive parents? names are what?s listed on the children?s birth certificates?NOT the birth parents. The birth certificates with the birth parents? names on them are filed away by court order and sealed from public view. I am not even certain if the adopted children are able to obtain their own original pre-adoption birth certificates without a judge signing off on that.

The man who calls himself ?Barack Hussein Obama? was indeed born in Hawaii in August of 1961?but his legal name is either Barry Soetoro, Soetobakh Soetoro, Soetoro Soetobakh, or Soetobakh Dunham.

There are myriad very messy constitutional and legal issues that arise from the fact the current US President has engaged in an orchestrated conspiracy to hide his long form birth certificate and actual legal name.

THAT is why so much money and energy has been lavished on the efforts to keep his secret.

I wonder if the efforts underway in ten states (and counting) to require the production of an original long form birth certificate for presidential candidates to appear on the 2012 ballots has anything to do with the Supreme Court?s sudden interest in holding a conference on Obama?s eligibility.

Obama, as president, has turned into another Jimmy Carter in office?but in terms of his adopted name change he actually has something in common with Gerald Ford?who was born ?Leslie Lynch King Jr.? in 1913.

His mother remarried, and at the time of that marriage her new husband adopted Leslie Lynch King Jr. and changed his name to ?Gerald Ford?, the name Ford used for the rest of his life, including the duration of his accidental presidency.

What would have happened if, as president, Ford decided to use the name ?Leslie Lynch King, Jr.? on official documents?

Would they have been legal, since his birth certificate was changed at the time of adoption to read ?Gerald Ford??

This is the exact boat ?Obama? is in, since his legal name was changed to Soetobakh-something-or-another the way little Leslie Lynch King?s name was changed to Gerald Ford.

I have yet to see anyone make this connection in any articles related to this subject, so I would love help researching any other instances of someone ignoring a legal name change and conducting official business under a nickname that?s completely different from what?s listed on that person?s birth certificate.

Has there ever been an instance like this?

Gerald Ford?s name was changed at the time of his adoption from a name that bears no resemblance at all to it?.but Ford kept his adopted name as an adult and used it in his presidency?unlike Obama who reverted to his birth name but does not seem to have ever completed the necessary paperwork in Hawaii to change his name from Soetobakh-something-or-another BACK to ?Barack Hussein Obama?, which was the name this political chameleon decided would take him farthest in life (and he was right!).

There are all sorts of interesting legal questions that arise from this.
Maybe you can help raise them in the thread below as a first step to sleuthing out answers for them.
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:30
*The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents*
By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 14, 2011

​

A famous Holmesian dictum provides that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921) (Holmes, J.). There have been 43 Americans that have served as President (not including Barack Obama). Ten were born before 1787. Until Martin Van Buren (who was born in 1782 or six years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence) became President in 1837 (making him the 8th president), all the Presidents had been born before 1776 to parents who, undoubtedly, at the time considered themselves to be loyal subjects of one of the British Kings. The president following Van Buren, William H. Harrison (the 9th president), was also born before 1776 to parents who were British ?natural born subjects.? All Presidents born before July 4, 1776, were born British ?natural born subjects.? Those early presidents were naturalized to become ?Citizens of the United States? through the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. These presidents included Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, and Harrison. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, allowing anyone who was a ?Citizen of the United States? at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President, grandfathered these presidents to be eligible. All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria, i.e., born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the President?s birth. Neither Arthur nor Obama were ?natural born Citizens? at the time of birth. Arthur was born to an alien father who also made his U.S. citizen mother an alien. Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father who never became a U.S. citizen and, being here only on a temporary student visa, was never even an immigrant. There have been 46 Americans that have served as Vice-President (not including Mr. Biden). Ten were born before 1787. All Vice-Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. Fourteen Vice Presidents have gone on to be President.

Let us now examine how President James Buchanan, who had an Irish father, Woodrow Wilson, who had an English mother, and Herbert Hoover, who had a Canadian mother, were ?natural born Citizens.? As we have seen, President Thomas Jefferson, whose mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both born in Ireland, were grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Chester Arthur, not being either grandfathered or a ?natural born Citizen,? will be treated separately.

When determining whether a child born in the U.S. is an Article II ?natural born Citizen,? the question is not whether the parents of the child are foreign born. Rather, the question is whether they are ?citizens of the United States? at the time of the child?s birth in the United States. In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court, providing the same definition of a ?natural born citizen? as did Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758), but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80. So as we can see, the Supreme Court told us that a ?natural born citizen? is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See also, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (distinguished between a ?natural born Citizen? and a ?citizen of the United States? and cited Vattel and quoted his definition of ?natural born Citizen? as did Minor v. Happersett but relied on the English common law to define a born ?citizen of the United States? under the 14th Amendment).

The status of being ?citizens of the United States? can be acquired by the parents by either being ?natural born Citizens? or by becoming ?citizens of the United States? by naturalization under an Act of Congress or treaty or if born in the U.S. under the 14th Amendment. The case of Perkins v Elg 307 U. S. 325 (1939) makes the point and shows how a child born in the U.S. to naturalized parents was declared a ?natural born Citizen.? The central question in the Perkins case dealt with whether the Elg child lost her U.S. birth citizenship status because of the acts of her parents and not because of anything she elected to do or some treaty or Act of Congress. But the case is also important in understanding the meaning of a ?natural born Citizen.?

Under out naturalization laws, citizenship can be derived from a close relation to a family member. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history, these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10 February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband. Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868). The 1922 Married Women's Act (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between naturalization and marital status for most women.

Marie Elg's parents emigrated from Sweden to the U.S. in 1906. In that same year, Mr. Elg naturalized and became a U.S. citizen. Under the then existing naturalization laws (Act of 10 February 1855), his wife automatically became a U.S. citizen through the U.S. naturalization of her husband. Hence, when Marie Elg was born in the U.S. in 1907 both her mother and father were U.S. citizens. Marie Elg was therefore a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The Court found that ?[o]n her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, ? 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.? Additionally, the lower court found Elg to be a ?natural born Citizen.? The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this finding. The Court therefore gave a child born to naturalized ?citizens of the United States? the right to run for President. The U.S.

Supreme Court in Elg therefore once again affirmed the American common law definition of a ?natural born Citizen? which is a child born in the country to citizen parents, a definition that was confirmed during the Founding by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758). On the other hand, no U.S. Supreme Court decision has found a child born to one or two alien parents to be an Article II ?natural born Citizen.?

So as we can see, a ?natural born Citizen? can be produced by being born in the U.S. to naturalized parents who are ?citizens of the United States.? Also, under our old naturalization laws, once a woman married a U.S. citizen, she herself automatically became a U.S. citizen derivatively from her husband. These laws apply to show that three of the six Presidents listed were ?natural born Citizens.? Jefferson was not a ?natural born Citizen? but, adhering to the revolution, was a ?citizen of the United States.? Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he was grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Jackson, also became a ?citizen of the United States? by adhering to the revolution and also grandfathered to be eligible to be President. Buchanan?s father naturalized to become a ?citizen of the United States? prior to his son?s birth. Wilson?s mother became a ?citizen of the United States? when she married her husband who was a ?citizen of the United States.? Hoover?s mother became a ?citizen of the United States? when she married her husband who was a ?citizen of the United States. So except for Jefferson and Jackson who were grandfathered, all these presidents were born in the U.S. to parents who were at the time of their birth ?citizens of the United States.? They were all ?natural born Citizens.?

The only exception to all this is Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur (1881-1885), was born on October 5, 1829 in Fairfield, Vermont. His father, William Arthur, when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland. His father did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen until 14 years after Chester Arthur?s birth. Chester Arthur?s mother, Malvina Stone, was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Franklin, Vermont. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Because the citizenship of the wife merged into that of the husband, this made Arthur born to an alien mother and father. He was therefore born with dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States. It is believed that Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to hide the fact that when he was born his father was not a U.S. citizen and to therefore obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. What is most telling is that Chester Arthur also burned all personal records just prior to his death.

Chester Arthur was challenged during his Vice Presidential bid on the ground that he was not born in the United States. No one challenged Chester Arthur on the ground that even if he were born in the United States, he was still not an Article II ?natural born Citizen? because of his father?s foreign citizenship at the time of his birth which also made his mother an alien. Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father?s and mother?s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth. Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006, ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792, 192 pages; naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/. Also see the research done by attorney Leo Donofrio on the Chester Arthur issue which can be found at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth.

For information and research on the meaning of an Article II ?natural born Citizen,? please see the many essays at this blog, puzo1.blogspot.com/.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
Tel: 732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906
puzo1.blogspot.com/
? 2011 Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
#### -Source.

P.S. A copy of this report may be downloaded at SCRIBD.com at this link:
www.scribd.com/doc/48894388/The-Citizenship-Status-of-Our-44-Presidents

For information and research on the meaning of an Article II ?natural born Citizen,? please see the many essays at this blog, puzo1.blogspot.com/.
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

O?Reilly Not Fair and Balanced on Obama Birth Certificate Issue.

Posted on February 18, 2011 by Redbaiter

Bill O?Reilly continues his assault on those who believe the President of the US should be constitutionally eligible. In his show last Wednesday he slandered those who want Obama to provide real proof he was born in the US by aligning them with Truthers, the far right, and Ron Paul and John Birchers. I guess I?m pretty representative of most who want the matter settled. I?m none of those things.

O?Reilly had Karl Rove on and together they demonstrated a remarkable degree of ignorance on the issue and a remarkable degree of bigotry towards fellow Americans. O?Reilly started the show by attacking a recent poll that showed 50% of Republicans question Obama?s eligibility. He then quoted from another poll taken in April last year that he claimed confronted the findings of the more recent poll. For the sake of the argument, I?ll concede O?Reilly?s claim that the later poll was inaccurate. (sample very small at 400 people). However if the only other poll he could find was from April 2010 he wasn?t looking very hard.

Recent polls even if you want to argue their methodology and figures, still show an increasing amount of doubt in the US as to Obama?s Constitutional eligibility. According to a recent (Jan 14-17 2010) Wenzel Strategies poll, when asked if they consider Obama a ?legitimate president,? 32.6 percent of respondents said no, and another 15.8 percent said they were not sure. Barely half of the voters, 51.5 percent said they do consider Obama a legitimate president .

This basically agrees with the poll on Republican voters O?Reilly claims is inaccurate. There is an undeniable trend, and a poll taken today I am sure would demonstrate an entirely different result to 11 months ago.

Both Rove and O?Reilly hammered on about-

1) The BC issue being a distraction deliberately put out there to split the Republican Party.

No evidence of this. In fact if this was their plan, why was Lou Dobbs sacked from CNN for pursuing it? Why have most Democrat supporting news agencies refused to report on the issue, or when they have reported, continued with the lie that the COLB is a birth certificate?

Secondly, if it is a strategy designed to split, then all that has to happen to end it is for RINOS like Rove and O?Reilly to ask Obama to produce the long form certificate. Case closed. If there was enough clamour for him to do this he would have to.

2) The COLB is the birth certificate.

Accepted as a lie by most informed people. Even Chris Matthews and Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii.

3) There were advertisements notifying of the birth in two Hawaii newspapers.

So there might have been (although this still remains to be proved as all that exists are microfilm copies) but these could have many explanations.

The most commonly accepted one being that the advertisements were automatically generated once documents certifying the baby?s existence were processed by the Registry office. In other words, Obama?s grandparents could have registered the birth merely to ensure the baby had American citizenship. (not the same as ?natural born?) There is no supporting proof (so far) to show Obama was born anywhere or at any time. Two newspaper advertisements and a electronic COLB are not enough to prove a President?s eligibility.

What O?Reilly and Rove both continue to refuse to acknowledge is that this is not a Ron Paul issue, or a 9/11 conspiracy issue, or a John Birch issue, or a far right issue, IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE that relates to the security of the US and the President?s loyalty to this country. If people worried by it are perhaps bound by one thing, it is respect for the American Constitution.

The braggard and coward O?Reilly needs to have somebody on who will oppose him on these issues. Not a nodding like thinking poodle like Karl Rove. Where is the fairness and balance Mr. O?Reilly?
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

HI lawmaker: Obama birth certificate bill tabled


<cite class="caption"> AP ? President Barack Obama greets people waiting for him on the tarmac as he arrives on Air Force One, Thursday, ? </cite>





<cite class="vcard"> By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Mark Niesse, Associated Press </cite> ? <abbr title="2011-02-17T15:52:51-0800" class="timedate">Thu Feb 17, 6:52 pm ET</abbr>

HONOLULU ? A proposal to sell copies of President Barack Obama's birth records to anyone for $100 is going nowhere in the Hawaii Legislature.
The bill died when it didn't get a hearing before a Friday deadline for bills to advance to their final committees.

House Health Committee Chairman Ryan Yamane said Thursday he won't consider the legislation because he doesn't think it's appropriate to sell private information to the public ? even if it's the president's birth documentation.

"We shouldn't take knee-jerk reactions. Just because there are these people who want this information, that doesn't mean we should change our state statute so a private, personal record could be accessible for $100," said Yamane, a Democrat.

Hawaii's privacy laws bar the release of birth records unless the requester is someone with a tangible interest, such as a close family member.

So-called "birthers" claim there's no proof Obama was born in the United States, and he is therefore ineligible to be president. Many of the skeptics question whether he was actually born in Kenya, his father's home country.

Republican Rep. Kymberly Pine said efforts to reveal Obama's birth information fuel unfounded suspicions that he wasn't born in Honolulu.
"It's just opening a whole new can of worms again," said Pine, the [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]minority [COLOR=#366388 ! important]floor [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]leader[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. "We should just let this die.
People have presented as many facts as we can."

Hawaii's former health director said in 2008 and 2009 she verified Obama's original records. Public notices were published in two local newspapers within days of Obama's birth at a Honolulu hospital.

The [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Obama [COLOR=#366388 ! important]campaign[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] issued a certification of live birth in 2008, an official document from the state showing the president's Aug. 4, 1961, birth date, his birth city and name, and his parents' names and races.

Bill introducer Rep. Rida Cabanilla said she'll drop the issue after she learned that requests to the state for Obama's birth documents have declined to just a few per week.

"The demand is dying down," said Cabanilla, a Democrat. "If they still got a lot of requests, I could have pushed it more."

Only a handful of people contacted Yamane about the bill, he said. Three
or four people from the mainland United States wrote they were skeptical that Obama was born in the United States, and two people from Hawaii said the government should focus on the economy rather than birthers.

Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who was a friend of [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Obama's [COLOR=#366388 ! important]parents[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and knew him as a child, revived the issue in December when he said he wanted to release more of the state's birth information about Obama. But he ended the effort in January when the state attorney general told him that privacy laws bar disclosure of an individual's birth documentation without the person's consent.

The bill failed because it had to reach its final committee ? the [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]House [COLOR=#366388 ! important]Finance [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Committee[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] ? by a Friday deadline for all bills requiring more than one public hearing to advance. But it wasn't given a hearing in the House Health Committee, a required step before it could move forward.

It would have run into many obstacles from lawmakers even if it had cleared the [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]House[/COLOR][/COLOR] and moved to the Senate.

"Any plan to sell copies of the president's or anyone else's birth records is a non-starter," said Senate Health Committee Chairman Josh Green, a Democrat. "Rights to privacy issues like this are too important to be taken lightly."

Lawmakers in several other states have introduced legislation aimed at making Obama prove his U.S. nationality by birth before he could be placed on those states' ballots. Those states include Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Nebraska, Connecticut, [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Oklahoma[/COLOR][/COLOR] and Texas.

***************************************************

Told ya. :btj:
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BORN IN THE USA?[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

[/FONT] [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court

[/FONT] <hr size="1"> [SIZE=-1]Posted: February 17, 2011
2:23 pm Eastern

[/SIZE] [FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Bob Unruh[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] ? 2011 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]



In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He also argued that if court members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."

"We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.

<table align="left" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="307">
Case motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.

"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND's request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans.

"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."

That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.
<table align="right" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="309">
Docketing information from Supreme Court</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the
[court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

The video:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/O7qEH-tKoXA" allowfullscreen="" width="640" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe>

Hemenway's arguments came in the petition for rehearing that followed the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments.

However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.

That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.

Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Kagan and Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.



Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.

"Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court," said the document, submitted to the court.

"Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, 'as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought ? and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.' Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners' petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion," Hemenway wrote.

"Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure," the brief explains.

"If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate," the brief states.

The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered "the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president 'be' a 'natural born citizen.'"



The argument continued, "Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners' motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase 'natural born citizen.'

"That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country," the filing said.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.

"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.

"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.

"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.

Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.

It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.

WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

<table align="center" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="636">
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.

Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.

Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."

It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.

"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.

Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.

"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.

<table align="right" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="200">
Judge James Robertson</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "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."

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."

"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.
"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,?' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.

Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.

"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.

"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order ? If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound ? to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.

The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has 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."

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.

Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BORN IN THE USA?[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

[/FONT] [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court

[/FONT] <hr size="1"> [SIZE=-1]Posted: February 17, 2011
2:23 pm Eastern

[/SIZE] [FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Bob Unruh[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] ? 2011 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]



In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He also argued that if court members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."

"We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.

<table align="left" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="307">
Case motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.

"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND's request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans.

"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."

That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.
<table align="right" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="309">
Docketing information from Supreme Court</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the
[court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

The video:



Hemenway's arguments came in the petition for rehearing that followed the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments.

However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.

That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.

Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Kagan and Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.



Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.

"Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court," said the document, submitted to the court.

"Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, 'as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought ? and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.' Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners' petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion," Hemenway wrote.

"Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure," the brief explains.

"If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate," the brief states.

The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered "the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president 'be' a 'natural born citizen.'"



The argument continued, "Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners' motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase 'natural born citizen.'

"That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country," the filing said.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.

"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.

"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.

"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.

Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.

It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.

WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

<table align="center" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="636">
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.

Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.

Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."

It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.

"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.

Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.

"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.

<table align="right" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="200">
Judge James Robertson</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "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."

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."

"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.
"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,?' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.

Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.

"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.

"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order ? If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound ? to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.

The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has 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."

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.

Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Eligibility resolution nears[/FONT]
<hr size="1"> [SIZE=-1]Posted: February 17, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] ? 2011 [/SIZE]

If anyone has a right to be frustrated and demoralized about the eligibility issue, it is me.

For nearly three years, I have stuck my neck out on it, devoting massive news-gathering resources to unwrapping Barack Obama's real-life narrative, endured abuse as a "conspiracy theorist" and "wacko" only to see my news organization still standing virtually alone.

Ironically, I'm not discouraged at all about getting resolution to this controversy. In fact, I believe it is right around the corner.

I can understand the reason for the discouragement of others. They've watched court case after court case dismissed. They've watched an officer and a gentleman by the name of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin go to prison for trying to get at the truth. They've witnessed their majority views of skepticism about Obama ridiculed and marginalized. They've seen a near blackout of media coverage of the real issues of constitutional eligibility.

But what most people have not yet noticed is that judgment day is near.

Nearly a year ago, I spelled out how this issue would be resolved no later than 2012.

Today, I can honestly and enthusiastically say, "See, I told you so."

Jack Cashill's literary investigation uncovers revelations galore about Obama's alleged life narrative. Order the new book "Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Love and Letters of America's First Post-Modern President"

Back then, Americans were still just beginning to become aware of the many contradictions in Obama's life narrative and the fact that there was no meaningful evidence of his constitutional eligibility.

Today, at least 58 percent of Americans don't believe his story ? and want to see real proof. :houra

That is a crisis for Obama. That's not a fact that will change should winds of economic recovery blow in his direction over the next two years.

But there's an even bigger crisis he's facing in 2012 if he plans to stand for re-election.

Again, as I predicted last year, states are approving strict eligibility tests to get on their ballots as presidential candidates. Back then, I was hopeful four or five states might make such moves, virtually ensuring no candidate of questionable eligibility could ever again run for the presidency, let alone assume office.

My prediction, it turns out, was too conservative.

So far, 11 states have introduced such legislation this year alone, with some of them sure to pass into law.

So be of good cheer, all you crazy "birthers"!

We're winning.

The system is correcting itself.

The people are having their say.

States are asserting their sovereign rights to conduct free and fair elections.

It's all good.

And there really is resolution in sight.

I am so confident about the eventual outcome now that I am increasingly persuaded that Barack Obama will not even seek re-election.

That will be the tipoff that our suspicions about Obama's eligibility and/or life story were correct all along.

Of course, you will have to remind your friends and neighbors and the Big Media that this outcome was predicted years in advance. Don't expect them to remember. Don't expect WND to get the Pulitzer Prize for public affairs reporting. Don't expect any monuments to be erected to me. Don't expect to get any apologies from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and company.

But let not your heart be troubled over Obama magically surviving this controversy by getting re-elected. That is just not in the cards.

At the same time, however, we need to keep pushing this issue harder and harder and harder. It's no time to relax and be overconfident.

There's still a lot of work to do.

And here at WND, we have some surprises coming in the next few months that will shock the Obama apologists and the Big Media cover-up artists.

Stay tuned. It's going to be ? interesting.

 
J

Joe Contrarian

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BORN IN THE USA?[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hawaii to keep Obama 'birth certificate' secret

 [/FONT] [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Democrats kill plan to sell access for $100

[/FONT] <hr size="1"> [SIZE=-1]Posted: February 18, 2011
7:45 pm Eastern

[/SIZE] [FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Jerome R. Corsi[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] ? 2011 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]

<table align="right" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="357">
Barack Obama and David Letterman</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> The Hawaii state legislature has abandoned plans to develop and sell for $100 a newly created document carrying the official seal of the state designed to convince an increasingly skeptical American public that Barack Obama actually was born in Hawaii.

There is no indication the Hawaii state legislature made any effort to locate Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate in the vault archives of the Hawaii Department of Health as part of its work.

But the bill, HB1116, died in the House Health Committee without a hearing, after the legislature missed a Friday deadline for the plan to advance to the House Finance Committee, a required step before the bill could move forward.

The explanation for dropping the bill ? Hawaii's privacy laws, an objection Hawaii House Democrats did not consider an obstacle when the legislation was introduced last month.

House Health Committee chairman Ryan Yamane told the Associated Press on Thursday that he did not think it was appropriate to sell to the public private information protected by Hawaii's privacy laws.

"We shouldn't take knee-jerk reactions," Yamane, a Democrat, told the Associate Press. "Just because there are people who want this information, that doesn't mean we should change our state statute so a private, personal record could be accessible for $100."

This was the same excuse Gov. Neil Abercrombie had used to abandon his much-touted effort to use the power and authority of the governor's office to settle once and for all the Obama birth controversy by finding in the vault archives of the Hawaii Department of Health Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate and releasing the document to a skeptical public.

Hawaii's Revised Statute HRS338 restricts making public birth certificate and other birth vital records only to those who have a "direct and tangible interest," namely the person applying for the certified birth certificate copy, a member of the immediate family, or others with a legal interest such as an adoptive parent or a legal guardian.

The language of HB1116 attempted to skirt these restrictions by modifying Hawaii law such that for a fee of $100, the Hawaii Department of Health will release "a copy of a birth record" for those HB1116 defines as "persons of prominence," such as Barack Obama or any other Hawaiian running for president.

The tip-off that the proposed legislation intended to withhold from public disclosure President Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, if such a document exists, came in an interview Democratic Rep. John Mizuno, one of the Democratic co- sponsors of the measure gave to Gina Mangieri reporting for KHON2 in Hawaii.

"If the people are so concerned about Barack Obama and if he was actually born in Hawaii, born in the United States, let them pay a fee of 100 bucks," Mizuno told KHON2. "We can certainly use the money, and we don't need to hear their complaining anymore."

Mangieri in reporting Mizuno's comments noted Hawaiian lawmakers sponsoring the bill acknowledge they would need to clear the confidentiality hurdles in state law that prohibit the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record.

"We're hoping to work with our legal department, the attorney general's office, for an opinion to see if we can craft something which will justify that it is true, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and will have the state seal to certify that," Mizuno told KHON2. "Something very generic but won't violate any federal or state law."

Now, Democrats in the state legislature are claiming the demand to see Obama's birth certificate was not as great as they originally thought, certainly not a demand sufficient to slow up or otherwise interfere with the orderly operation of the Hawaii Department of Health.

Rep. Rida Cabanilla, the Democrat who first introduced the bill, said she decided to drop the issue after she learned out that requests to the Hawaii Department of Health to see Obama's birth documents have declined to just a few a week.

"The demand is dying down," Cabanilla told the Associated Press. "If they still get a lot of requests, I could have pushed it more."

The Hawaii legislature stepped into the breach to offer to produce and sell for $100 official Obama birth records after Gov. Abercrombie announced publicly he was abandoning his effort to find and make public Obama?s birth records in Hawaii.

WND has previously reported that the Honolulu Star Advertiser printed an interview with Abercrombie that suggested a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Toward the end of the interview with the Honolulu Star Advertiser, the newspaper asked Abercrombie the following: "Q: You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama?s birth certificate. How is that coming?"

In responding, Abercrombie acknowledged that the birth certificate issue will have "political implications" for the presidential election in 2012 "that we simply cannot have."

In suggesting he was still intent on producing more birth records on Obama from the Hawaii Department of Health vital records vault, Abercrombie told the newspaper there was a recording of the Obama birth in the state archives that Abercrombie wants to make public.

Interestingly, Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate; all Abercrombie suggested his investigations had found to date was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives.

"It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down ?" Abercrombie said.

The controversy intensified when radio personality Mike Evans, a long-time Hawaii resident and a personal friend of Abercrombie for decades, gave a series of radio interviews on Jan. 20, in which he explained that Abercrombie gave up his search for Obama nativity records because the governor was unable to find in Hawaii's vital records Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.

"Although Abercrombie is an Obama lover, he's the first to say he's concerned this is really going to be an issue during the re-election," Evans said on the 92 KQRS Morning Show in Minneapolis.

On air, Evans recounted a discussion he had with Abercrombie in which the governor made clear he had to abandon his search for Obama's birth records because the records Abercrombie expected to find in the Hawaii Department of Health vault were not there..

"Abercrombie was probably more shocked than anybody," Evans said, explaining that Abercrombie ended his search after he was unable to find any Hawaii official nativity documents for Obama that named a Hawaiian hospital where Obama was born or identified a Hawaiian physician who attended Obama's birth.

"Neil promised me that when he became governor, he was going to cut through all the red tape, he was going to get Obama's birth certificate once and for all and end this stupid controversy that he was not born in the United States," Evans said.

"Yesterday, talking to Neil's office, Neil says that he's searched everywhere using his powers as governor at the Kapi'olani Women's and Childrens' Hospital and Queens Hospital, the only places where kids were born in Hawaii back when Barack was born," Evans continued, "and there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii ? absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii."

Evans subsequently retracted his claim, saying that he misspoke when he suggested he had actually spoken to the governor about Abercrombie's inability to find Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.

So far, the only birth document available on Obama is a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth that first appeared on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign when posted by two supposedly independent websites that turned out to display a strong partisan bias for Obama ? Snopes.com that released the COLB in June 2008 and FactCheck.org that published photographs of the document in August 2008.

WND has previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the COLB document initially shown on the Internet by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.

WND also has reported that in 1961, Obama's grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama, Jr. had been foreign-born.

Similarly, the newspaper announcements of baby Obama's birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii since the newspaper announcements could have been triggered by the grandparents appearing in-person to register baby Obama as a Hawaiian birth, even if the baby was born elsewhere.

Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the birth announcements published in the Hawaii newspapers at the time, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, was the address where the grandparents lived.

WND has also reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu at an 11th Avenue address, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, and that Ann Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby's birth
toattend the University of Washington in Seattle.

Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962, to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

Conceivably, the yet undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering baby Obama' birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form,
WND also has reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has stated in an affidavit that from his work experience as an elections clerk he learned that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Queens Medical Center or Kapi'olani Medical Center in Hawaii have any record that baby Obama was born in their hospital.

Read more: Hawaii to keep Obama 'birth certificate' secret Hawaii to keep Obama 'birth certificate' secret
 
M

MannyLovitto

2
Re: Revealed:'The Obama birth certificate protection act'? (Born in the USA????)

Joe Contrarian said:
Why Obama wants to hide birth certificate
<!-- end head -->
[SIZE=-1]Posted: June 16, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

[/SIZE] <!--- copywrite only show on NON commentary pages as per joseph meeting 8/23/06 ------> [SIZE=-1] <!-- copyright --> [/SIZE]
Click to expand...


hehehehehehe...A classic "hot political" delusion posted here at EOG back in June 2009. And 30 months later, Msr Lanquel of Canada is still chasing the dragon with several hours of such posts every week......Comedy Gold
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top