Saturday, December 6, 2008

Media Bias?

Over the years, I have heard the charges of media bias over and over. I have been pretty skeptical about such claims in many cases, to be honest.

However, my experience with this Obama Eligibility Controversy has me wondering about media bias a bit more than I would have expected. Most of the mainstream media, including even most of the more conservative media, seems to ignore this issue.

Here is an interesting example. On December 6, 2008, the "right wing" Washington Times featured an article by Tom Ramstack, who wrote about the Donofrio case in an article entitled "Decision on Obama citizenship pending". Ramstacked claimed that there was a "protest" of about 6 people outside the Supreme Court on December 5, 2008. Here are some pictures of this vigil. I do not know about you, but it sure looks like more than 6 people to me. Did Ramstack arrive late, after everyone had already left? Did Ramstack arrive too early before people had congregated? Does Ramstack have trouble counting? I just do not know what to think.

Robert Stevens

The Hawaiian Health Department

Part of the difficulty in sorting through this issue is that there are a lot of rumors and misinformation on the internet. For example, there was a planted phantom decision about a nonexistent Virginia lawsuit from a "Wild Bill" that surfaced on November 3, 2008. No one has ever been able to verify that this VA lawsuit ever existed.

Similarly, many have claimed that the Hawaiian Health Department has issued a formal statement asserting that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and the images of the certifications of live birth circulating on the internet are valid Hawaii birth certificates. However, on closer inspection, a lot of these purported official statements by the Hawaiian Health Department seem to evaporate.

For example, the October 31, 2008 offical statement by Director of the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii Dr. Chiyome Fukino is:

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

"No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i."

which was extrapolated by the Associated Press to produce a story entitled "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine". The Honolulu Advertiser similarly padded this simple official statement into the November 1, 2008 article "Obama's certificate of birth OK, state says", which includes an assertion by reporter Dan Nakaso that "Fukino issued her statement to try to stomp out persistent rumors that Obama was not born in Honolulu — and is therefore not a U.S. citizen and thus ineligible to run for president." Note that this sentence in the article is not attributed to Fukino; this is purely an unfounded claim injected into the piece by the reporter.

One of our team contacted Colin McMahon of the Chicago Tribune, about his December 6, 2008 article, "Barack Obama, Sarah Palin dogged by Internet birth rumors", and he responded by email that we had surely missed the "recent" interviews with Hawaiian officials affirming that Obama was born in Hawaii. When queried about these "recent" interviews, McMahon directed us to this same November 1, 2008 Honolulu Advertiser article. Not particularly recent, and obviously a fairly misleading packaging of the October 31, 2008 official statement by Fukino.

Of course, as most people should know by now, you can have a valid Hawaiian certificate of live birth, either short or long form, and still be born outside of Hawaii or even the US (per Hawaii law 338-17.8). After all, there is even a space for registering foreign births on the form, a box "7C" (see an example of a valid long form showing box 7c here or here). And the Hawaiian Health Department, as far as we have been able to determine, has never issued a statement about what is in box 7C of Obama's certificate of live birth. All that Fukino stated is that "Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." Which to be honest, is somewhat vague and is not really the information that is being sought.

As another example, we are frequently told that Director of Communications of the Hawaiian Department of Health Janice Okubo has verified that Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen". Recently we asked for a source for this, and were given a quote from a post by Chicago Tribune reporter James Janega on the Chicago Tribune's Washington Bureau political blog, "The Swamp", on November 3, 2008,:

Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?

"Yes," said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. "That's what Dr. Fukino is saying."

Read the complete blog post to see it in context.

This was supposedly sent to "The Swamp" by email and mentioned in phone conversations with Janice Okubo. It is interesting to me that when our group repeatedly contacted the Hawaiian Health Department, the Hawaiian Health Department representatives stated that they will not discuss whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not, as a matter of policy and law. Others have had similar responses. For example, David Serchuk wrote on on November 21, 2008 that:

"Unfortunately the way state laws are written we are not allowed to confirm vital information and vital records," said Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for Hawaii's department of health. "I cannot confirm individual information because that is against the law."

She added, though, that Dr. Fukino does have authority over and maintains records for individuals born in Hawaii.

If Janega's blog post is accurate, then the Hawaiian Health Department should issue a formal statement on this issue. Perhaps some compromise could be found which reveals the information that is being sought, but still protects the privacy of the individuals involved. It is unfortunate that the Hawaii government and/or the Obama clique has not allowed this, particularly when Hawaiian government officials and Obama are being sued in court over this matter in more than one complaint. More openness would probably have prevented this current unpleasant situation.

If someone in the Hawaiian Health Department was willing to make this sort of assertion in print, or better yet, under oath, then this entire contretemps would probably not have ballooned to its present proportions. However, the incredible amount of foot-dragging, evasion, ambiguous statements and legal wrangling makes it less likely that most skeptics will be satisfied by anything except a careful examination of the evidence at this point.

The short form document Obama produced, the Hawaiian certification of live birth (as distinct from the Hawaiian certificate of live birth, or long form document) has much less information on it, and is lacking information about the hospital and attending physician, etc. This extra information can be used to corroborate the information on the document. The short form document is even judged to be inadequate for participating in Hawaiian government programs. Also, in some circumstances, the Hawaiian birth documents can be changed later.

As an aside, it is interesting that two different "original" Hawaiian certifications of live birth have been produced by the Obama campaign, at and I wonder why they produced two different documents? Both are "originals"? How can there be two originals? Why are they so different? Could it be that a more convincing version had to be produced after many deficiencies in the "fightthesmears" digital image were pointed out?

Robert Stevens

Friday, December 5, 2008

From CA Supreme Court

Court data last updated: 12/05/2008 09:53 PM

Case Summary Docket Briefs
Disposition Parties and Attorneys Lower Court
Parties and Attorneys

Case Number S168690 Party Attorney
LIGHTFOOT, GAIL : Petitioner
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA

TURNER, NEIL B : Petitioner
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA

Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA

Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA

Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA

BARNETT, PAMELA : Petitioner
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA

BARNETT, PAMELA : Petitioner
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA

BRADLEY, EVELYN : Petitioner
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA

BOWEN, DEBRA : Respondent
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

DOES 1-100 : Respondent

Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Upcoming appearances

Tomorrow at 11 Pacific- Janet Folgers show (it is in 70 markets)
Monday at 1 Eastern -Press conference at National Press Club, supposedly televised live on C-span (if smbd doesn't buy C-span and doesn't turn it into Obama-news or al Jazera news :-)

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Lightfoot v. Bowen: A new lawsuit

Today, December 3, 2008, Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS Esq filed a second lawsuit in the Supreme Court of California; Lightfoot v. Bowen, docket number S168690. This is a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus for Stay". The coversheet with the submission information can be found here.

Orly hopes that the California Supreme Court will either issue an emergency stay of the voting of the electors, or decline to hear the case because it is a federal issue. Either way, Orly hopes that the California Supreme Court will make this pronouncement in a timely manner.

Anyone who is concerned about this issue and wishes to express their concern to the court can do so:

Interested parties can contact the California Supreme Court by phone

213 830 7570 Main court number in Los Angeles

415-865-7060 (Chief Justice Ronald M. George in San Francisco)

(415) 865-7000 Main court number in San Francisco

or by FAX

415 865 7183 Main FAX number in San Francisco

to express their concern that this complaint be looked at in a timely matter.

Tim Johnson

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Emergency Motion for Immediate injunction in the Supreme court by Berg

Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Berg to File Emergency Injunction Today, Awaits Answer from Barack Obama and DNC
One day after the deadline set by Supreme Court Justice David Souter for Barack Obama and the DNC to respond to attorney Philip Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari has passed without an answer, Berg is filing a motion in the Court in an attempt to further prevent Obama from taking office in January as the 44th president of the United States.

From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts -- in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court (1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and (2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.

"As I've said over and over and over again, we're headed toward a constitutional crisis, and it is absolutely imperative that we find out now, before he is sworn in, whether Obama is qualified under the United States Constitution to be president," Berg said.

"It is my firm belief, my one thousand percent firm belief," he said, "that he does not meet the natural born qualifications, that he should not be voted for by the electors, and that he should not be sworn in this January unless he shows his credentials ... which he of course cannot, simply because he does not have them."

The motion comes one day after Obama and the DNC were directed to respond to Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the parties, however, are allowed two more days for mail service). On Wed., Nov. 19, the Federal Election Commission formally waived its right to respond to Berg's petition and, while such waiver is not necessary, neither is any such response to a petition. Like the FEC, Obama and the DNC could essentially bank on the low odds that any one matter will be heard by the Court (only somewhere between 70 and 120 of the approximately 8,000 petitions are granted each year), or rely on arguments already made that Berg lacks standing to sue at all.

While he recognizes that Obama and the DNC were not obligated to file an answer, Berg believes that the lack of response could be rooted less in procedure and more in audacity, stating that he "doesn't expect them to respond" and that his opponents will likely "take a more cavalier approach that we lack standing."

"If they were going to respond, I get the feeling that it would have been in there by now," Berg said. "The feeling may be that, if they respond, they could hold themselves out for perjury later on when we're successful. That's why, in the lower court, they just relied on a motion to dismiss based on standing. Here, they may not want to file an actual, specific response in the Supreme Court for fear they'll be held to it later."

Despite relative inactivity in the courts over the past few weeks, Berg is happy with the efforts being taken by others to spread the word and "ensure that our Constitution is being upheld." Berg said that it is "apparent that we have made some concrete breakthroughs in terms of taking our message and our arguments to the American people," and indeed his challenge of Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility, started with a simple complaint on August 21, 2008, has taken on a mind of its own. A full-page advertisement ran in the news section of yesterday's Chicago Tribune, and will run again tomorrow. Another full-page ad ran last week in the Washington Times. Articles have been published online and otherwise by the Washington Post, MSNBC, The Christian Science Monitor, and more.

"We're finding that there is a great interest across the United States," Berg said. "I've been on talk show after talk show, and the more the case is discussed, the more people are made aware of it and are disgusted by the fact that Obama just won't simply produce the credentials showing he's qualified. Hopefully, some authority will demand it."

"This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated against American citizens in the history of our nation," he said. "When all is said and done, people should be held criminally responsible for this, people should go to jail for this. It's just wrong, on so many levels."

Check back later this week with a more detailed question-and-answer session with Philip Berg, likely covering everything from Andy Martin to purported death threats against other plaintiffs to the cases in general filed across the country.

For a full list and time-line of all materials surrounding the Berg case and others at America's Right, click HERE.

Posted by Jeff Schreiber LINK:

An Ordinary Man in Ky files a legal action against Obama

FOX 17 WZTV (TV)/ DT NASHVILLEWhitley man demands proof of Obama's US birth
December 01, 2008 07:38 EST

LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) -- A Whitley County truck driver has filed a demand that President-elect Barack Obama prove he is a natural-born U.S. citizen -- one of the requirements to become president.

The Lexington Herald-Leader reports this may be the first postelection court challenge to Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.

Forty-seven-year-old Daniel John Essek filed a demand last week that Obama provide a copy of his birth certificate to a federal judge in London for verification.

A Pennsylvania judge threw out a pre-election court challenge to Obama's birth qualification, saying its arguments were frivolous.

Obama's campaign has posted a copy of his birth certificate on the Internet to prove he was born in Hawaii.

Essek says he voted for John McCain in November but is questioning Obama's qualifications because "this is patriotism."

Essek unsuccessful ran for U.S. Senate in the primary election this year.


Monday, December 1, 2008

5th Obamagate case reaches the Supreme Court

5Th Obama case has reached the Supreme Court:
1. Philip J berg PA
2. Leo C Donofrio NJ
3. Chris Strunck NY
4. Cort Wrotnowski CT
5. Darrel Hunter TX
Cases from 15 more states are moving towards the Supreme Court.
We the People foundation has placed a full page add in the Chicago Tribune, Obama home turf demanding disclosure of birth certificate and all other pertinent documents.
More sabotage by the Supreme Court: Mr. Wrotnowski was told that his case was delayed by 7 days, because his Emergency Petition for Stay of Elections was forwarded to the Anthrax lab. Numerous phone calls were placed to the Supreme Court demanding answers, why was that Petition sent to the Anthrax lab, Mr. Wrotnowski is a law abiding citizen, a business owner, was never in trouble with the law. Why was his petition delayed by a week via sending it to the Anthrax lab. No response was received, no name of the clerk was given. These clerks are sabotaging anti Obama cases to put a foreigner in the White House, this is bordering on aiding and abetting treason. Please write to all 9 judges, let them know what is going on, demand to join all 5 cases currently in the Supreme Court, you can send them a copy of our Keyes v Bowen petition for Writ of Mandate as a supporting document. Currently I am working on filing a second case, representing another group of candidates, party officials, Certified Electors and Registered voters and I am assisting other attorneys all around the country, that are preparing similar actions and trying to match voters and electors in different states with attorneys that can represent them. Heartfelt thanks to Mr. Bob Stevens and Mrs. Lisa Ostella that have been working day and night and conducting research. I thank some 1700 supporters that have sent me e-mails and warm wishes. I was informed by plains radio that my interview with Joe Thunder was downloaded 20,000 times within 1 week. With a usual chain of 10 e-mail forwards per download, it means that some 200,000 heard this one of 6 interviews.
Please remember to write, e-mail, fax and keep calling all advertisers, sponsors and all your friends and relatives, ask all of them to boycott all the media outlets that are lying to the public, hiding the truth and are not disclosing the fact that Obama is not legally eligible to be the president. This media needs to feel, where it really hurts them, in their pockets.
God Bless all of you, Orly Taitz

20,000 troops deployed on US soil

20,000 Troops To Be Used as U.S. Policemen

Monday, December 1, 2008 7:53 AM
Article Font Size

WASHINGTON -- The US Department of Defense plans to deploy 20,000 troops nationwide by 2011 to help state and local officials respond to terror or nuclear attacks and emergencies, The Washington Post said Monday.

Citing Pentagon officials, the newspaper said the plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces.

The first 4,700-strong unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade, is based at Fort Stewart , Georgia , and is already available for deployment, according to General Victor Renuart, commander of the US Northern Command, it said.

Two additional groups will later join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops to support local and state authorities nationwide, The Post said.

They will all would be trained to respond to domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attacks.

The newspaper said that civil liberties groups and libertarians had expressed concern that the plan could undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

© 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.