Sunday, December 7, 2008
Keyes v. Bowen Final Writ
This is the final Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Keyes v. Bowen complaint.
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
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 Forbes.com 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 factcheck.org and fightthesmears.com. 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
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 Forbes.com 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 factcheck.org and fightthesmears.com. 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
LIGHTFOOT v. BOWEN
Case Number S168690 Party Attorney
LIGHTFOOT, GAIL : Petitioner
CA
ORLY TAITZ
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA
TURNER, NEIL B : Petitioner
CA
ORLY TAITZ
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA
FLANAGAN, KATHLEEN : Petitioner
CA
ORLY TAITZ
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA
OBENSCHAIN, JAMES M. : Petitioner
CA
ORLY TAITZ
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA
MCCONNELL, CAMDEN W. : Petitioner
CA
ORLY TAITZ
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA
BARNETT, PAMELA : Petitioner
CA
ORLY TAITZ
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA
BARNETT, PAMELA : Petitioner
CA
ORLY TAITZ
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA
BRADLEY, EVELYN : Petitioner
CA
ORLY TAITZ
Attorney at Law
26302 La Paz #211
Mission Viejo, CA
BOWEN, DEBRA : Respondent
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
DOES 1-100 : Respondent
CA
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 :-)
Orly
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 :-)
Orly
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
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: http://www.americasright.com/2008/12/berg-to-file-emergency-injunction-today.html
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: http://www.americasright.com/2008/12/berg-to-file-emergency-injunction-today.html
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.
------
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
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.
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.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Fox News Caves Under Pressure
Fox News Caves Under Pressure
by Debra Moore, of "Exposing Liberal Lies" blog
Posted by Miriam on November 29, 2008 at 5:43pm
View Discussions
This is America, land of the free! But, you wouldn’t know it based on our biased news coverage. One would think we live in the former Soviet Union and that Pravda, the government-controlled media, is broadcasting the news the way the Communist Party wanted it aired.
Before anyone gets all bent out of shape, I acknowledge that our government does not run our mainstream media. Instead, journalists have chosen on their own to slant their coverage to propagate their left-wing agenda. No accurate reporting from most newspapers, cable news stations, and all three nightly news broadcasts, not if it could hurt their liberal politicians.
Americans are fed up; just look at the ratings and at the fact that newspapers such as the New York Times are losing money. We want to hear the news, and I mean all the news, and with some objectivity.
Fox News was one station that people could count on to be “fair and balanced”. In fact during the recent election, a research group stated that Fox News did 40% negative coverage on both John McCain and Barack Obama; that’s impressive statistics. That, in fact, is why Fox has such high ratings.
However, their popularity may be going by the wayside, partly because the Saudis purchased a small percentage of the network. Doesn’t that just figure that the Arabs had to get their two cents into our news outlets. Would these people please go back to their desert homes and let us alone?
Atlas Shrugs reports about the Fox News story:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/11/fox-goes-ov...
“Watch their numbers slide. FOX never really understood why they were number one. Back as far as 2005, I lamented the dhimmitude.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/06/the_fox_tha...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/03/pwr_removin...
We all lost a chunk of our innocence after the Saudis purchased 6% of FOX News. The fix was in. FOX threw in with the Saudis and we could not help but notice the increasing Saudi influence at FOX News ever since the French riots of 2005 when after one phone call, FOX newscasters stopped calling the Muslim rioters Muslims.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/09/that_explai...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/12/fox-news-an...
‘I picked up the phone and called Murdoch … [and told him] these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,’ Prince al-Walid said.
Yes Obama's Prince Al-Walid, Obama's Benefactor: Dr. Khalid al Mansour, I presume ...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/obamas-bene...
‘Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.’
Gald wrote me, ‘The analysts at Fox (the ‘sane’ network) were theorizing (hoping) that the murderers at Mumbai Chabad were (get this) HINDUS! Of course! Those Jew-hating HINDUS!
Even before the Jewish corpses have experienced rigor mortis, liberals are cautioning against an outbreak of...Islamophobia! Lewis Carroll never constructed such an inversion of reality. It would be devastating even if Jews were united, but most American Jews are participants in this charade. Will Time Magazine's house Hebrew Joe Klein condemn the Islamic murderers of innocent Jews? No, he will question the patriotism of Jews who support Israel. Tragically, Klein is the rule...not the exception. Keep fighting the good fight, although embracing reality will just convince people that you are crazy. Still, we must unite to battle those Jew-hating Hindus.’
A TOOTHLESS FOX? Radio Equalizer
FNC Censors Itself Ahead Of Obama Presidency
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/11/fox-news-channel-engages...
‘Confirming the worst fears of millions of dedicated fans, the Fox News Channel really has gone soft on Obama. That's at a time when viewers are counting on it to remain a key opposition voice during a disturbing political shift away from freedom and prosperity.
According to columnists Rush & Malloy of the New York Daily News, Fox has issued a chilling edict to its hosts that they must cease criticism of Obama for the near future:
http://www.nydailynews.com/other/2008/11/07/2008-11-07_side_dish_th...
“Fox News boss Roger Ailes doesn't want to spoil Barack Obama's political honeymoon, we hear. A source says Ailes has told prime-time hosts Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren to lay off the President-elect - at least for a while.
‘We're not going to have any personal attacks on Obama,’ a network insider says. ‘The public has spoken - we must treat him with respect.’”
This confirms an almost-identical account your Radio Equalizer was given Wednesday evening from a key source. That person contends the order came from the top: Rupert Murdoch himself.
"Personal attacks", by the way, can be construed to mean any criticism of Barack Obama whatsoever.
The reason? News Corporation is bracing for potentially-vindictive actions by Obama's incoming thugocracy, especially regarding dual station / newspaper ownership rules and apparently seeks to placate the Dear Leader, hoping he will be merciful.
Unfortunately, this is a great way to send FNC's audience running for the hills, with evening talk radio as the likely beneficiary. Meanwhile, the left will still hate Fox.’
Did MSNBC lay off of Bush during his time in office? Of course not. Then why should FOX sacrifice its entire audience out of fear of Obama's thugs?
What about the tens of millions of voters that didn't support Obama and refuse to join his creepy cult?
Even before the election, viewers were alarmed over a sudden shift to a pro-Obama stance, especially during its debate coverage:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101608/content/01125106...
Particularly disturbing to Fox fans was Carl Cameron's now widely-discredited hit piece against Sarah Palin, which has led to a huge backlash in favor of the Alaskan governor.“
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110608/content/01125106...
Also, don’t forget that Fox News did not renew the contract of E.D. Hill after 11 years of service, most of it as a Fox and Friends anchor, where I might add, she did an awesome job. Hill referred to a fist bump by the Obamas as a “terrorist fist jab”, and later apologized for her comment.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/ed_hill_to_leave_fox_news_c...
Frankly, this is a big disappointment. I noticed during the presidential race, that Fox had very little to say about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Obama's radical position on gun control, and nothing whatsoever to say about Obama's connection to Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, for whom Obama campaigned. Of course, no one is mentioning the Obama birth certificate story. It's absolutely shameful! I guess that leaves us with the internet if we want to get the facts about what is going on around the world.
Reposted from "Fox News Caves Under Pressure" by Debra Moore of the "Exposing Liberal Lies" blog.
by Debra Moore, of "Exposing Liberal Lies" blog
Posted by Miriam on November 29, 2008 at 5:43pm
View Discussions
This is America, land of the free! But, you wouldn’t know it based on our biased news coverage. One would think we live in the former Soviet Union and that Pravda, the government-controlled media, is broadcasting the news the way the Communist Party wanted it aired.
Before anyone gets all bent out of shape, I acknowledge that our government does not run our mainstream media. Instead, journalists have chosen on their own to slant their coverage to propagate their left-wing agenda. No accurate reporting from most newspapers, cable news stations, and all three nightly news broadcasts, not if it could hurt their liberal politicians.
Americans are fed up; just look at the ratings and at the fact that newspapers such as the New York Times are losing money. We want to hear the news, and I mean all the news, and with some objectivity.
Fox News was one station that people could count on to be “fair and balanced”. In fact during the recent election, a research group stated that Fox News did 40% negative coverage on both John McCain and Barack Obama; that’s impressive statistics. That, in fact, is why Fox has such high ratings.
However, their popularity may be going by the wayside, partly because the Saudis purchased a small percentage of the network. Doesn’t that just figure that the Arabs had to get their two cents into our news outlets. Would these people please go back to their desert homes and let us alone?
Atlas Shrugs reports about the Fox News story:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/11/fox-goes-ov...
“Watch their numbers slide. FOX never really understood why they were number one. Back as far as 2005, I lamented the dhimmitude.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/06/the_fox_tha...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/03/pwr_removin...
We all lost a chunk of our innocence after the Saudis purchased 6% of FOX News. The fix was in. FOX threw in with the Saudis and we could not help but notice the increasing Saudi influence at FOX News ever since the French riots of 2005 when after one phone call, FOX newscasters stopped calling the Muslim rioters Muslims.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/09/that_explai...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/12/fox-news-an...
‘I picked up the phone and called Murdoch … [and told him] these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,’ Prince al-Walid said.
Yes Obama's Prince Al-Walid, Obama's Benefactor: Dr. Khalid al Mansour, I presume ...
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/obamas-bene...
‘Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.’
Gald wrote me, ‘The analysts at Fox (the ‘sane’ network) were theorizing (hoping) that the murderers at Mumbai Chabad were (get this) HINDUS! Of course! Those Jew-hating HINDUS!
Even before the Jewish corpses have experienced rigor mortis, liberals are cautioning against an outbreak of...Islamophobia! Lewis Carroll never constructed such an inversion of reality. It would be devastating even if Jews were united, but most American Jews are participants in this charade. Will Time Magazine's house Hebrew Joe Klein condemn the Islamic murderers of innocent Jews? No, he will question the patriotism of Jews who support Israel. Tragically, Klein is the rule...not the exception. Keep fighting the good fight, although embracing reality will just convince people that you are crazy. Still, we must unite to battle those Jew-hating Hindus.’
A TOOTHLESS FOX? Radio Equalizer
FNC Censors Itself Ahead Of Obama Presidency
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/11/fox-news-channel-engages...
‘Confirming the worst fears of millions of dedicated fans, the Fox News Channel really has gone soft on Obama. That's at a time when viewers are counting on it to remain a key opposition voice during a disturbing political shift away from freedom and prosperity.
According to columnists Rush & Malloy of the New York Daily News, Fox has issued a chilling edict to its hosts that they must cease criticism of Obama for the near future:
http://www.nydailynews.com/other/2008/11/07/2008-11-07_side_dish_th...
“Fox News boss Roger Ailes doesn't want to spoil Barack Obama's political honeymoon, we hear. A source says Ailes has told prime-time hosts Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren to lay off the President-elect - at least for a while.
‘We're not going to have any personal attacks on Obama,’ a network insider says. ‘The public has spoken - we must treat him with respect.’”
This confirms an almost-identical account your Radio Equalizer was given Wednesday evening from a key source. That person contends the order came from the top: Rupert Murdoch himself.
"Personal attacks", by the way, can be construed to mean any criticism of Barack Obama whatsoever.
The reason? News Corporation is bracing for potentially-vindictive actions by Obama's incoming thugocracy, especially regarding dual station / newspaper ownership rules and apparently seeks to placate the Dear Leader, hoping he will be merciful.
Unfortunately, this is a great way to send FNC's audience running for the hills, with evening talk radio as the likely beneficiary. Meanwhile, the left will still hate Fox.’
Did MSNBC lay off of Bush during his time in office? Of course not. Then why should FOX sacrifice its entire audience out of fear of Obama's thugs?
What about the tens of millions of voters that didn't support Obama and refuse to join his creepy cult?
Even before the election, viewers were alarmed over a sudden shift to a pro-Obama stance, especially during its debate coverage:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101608/content/01125106...
Particularly disturbing to Fox fans was Carl Cameron's now widely-discredited hit piece against Sarah Palin, which has led to a huge backlash in favor of the Alaskan governor.“
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110608/content/01125106...
Also, don’t forget that Fox News did not renew the contract of E.D. Hill after 11 years of service, most of it as a Fox and Friends anchor, where I might add, she did an awesome job. Hill referred to a fist bump by the Obamas as a “terrorist fist jab”, and later apologized for her comment.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/ed_hill_to_leave_fox_news_c...
Frankly, this is a big disappointment. I noticed during the presidential race, that Fox had very little to say about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Obama's radical position on gun control, and nothing whatsoever to say about Obama's connection to Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, for whom Obama campaigned. Of course, no one is mentioning the Obama birth certificate story. It's absolutely shameful! I guess that leaves us with the internet if we want to get the facts about what is going on around the world.
Reposted from "Fox News Caves Under Pressure" by Debra Moore of the "Exposing Liberal Lies" blog.
Need Help in Search
Barack Obama attended 3 expensive private universities: Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. Barack Obama has a half brother Mark Ndsandjo (Obama, Nidesand, Nidersand) his father was Barack Obama, Sr. His mother was Ruth Nidesand, an American preschool teacher, third wife of BO,Sr. Mark also attended 3 expensive US universities: Columbia, Stanford and Emory.
In Barack Obama's book and Jerry Corsi's book, Mark was quoted, saying that for him Barack Obama Sr. was dead, even when he was alive, since he was a drunk, a wife beater, a bigamist and didn't support his family. Ann Dunham's 1980 divorce from Lolo Soetoro shows that they didn't have any property and she was not getting any child support. The question is, how could these two half brothers afford to go to three expensive private universities in the US? One of the possibilities, (aside from help from a Saudi family) is in grants and scholarships that are given to students from the third world countries, such as Kenya and Indonesia.
I wonder if one of the volunteers can take charge of the search and file freedom of information act requests for info on Barack Obama's grants? He was supposed to put citizenship there and that is an "admission against interest", if he put Kenya or Indonesia or both. One possibility is a Fulbright Fellowship (his father was a recipient). Please e-mail me at dr_taitz@yahoo.com
In Barack Obama's book and Jerry Corsi's book, Mark was quoted, saying that for him Barack Obama Sr. was dead, even when he was alive, since he was a drunk, a wife beater, a bigamist and didn't support his family. Ann Dunham's 1980 divorce from Lolo Soetoro shows that they didn't have any property and she was not getting any child support. The question is, how could these two half brothers afford to go to three expensive private universities in the US? One of the possibilities, (aside from help from a Saudi family) is in grants and scholarships that are given to students from the third world countries, such as Kenya and Indonesia.
I wonder if one of the volunteers can take charge of the search and file freedom of information act requests for info on Barack Obama's grants? He was supposed to put citizenship there and that is an "admission against interest", if he put Kenya or Indonesia or both. One possibility is a Fulbright Fellowship (his father was a recipient). Please e-mail me at dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Who is responsible for vetting the candidates?
The blog "The Right Side of Life" has an interesting post today entitled "Is the Onus of Presidential Qualification on the Parties?". This article contains a link to the DNC Delegate Selection Rules, where on page 18 it is stated that:
In addition, there is a link to copies of letters between the South Carolina Democratic Party and the South Carolina Election Commission claiming that the Party is responsible for determining the eligibility of the candidates.
An article on "Vetting Candidates" on the Save Our Rights Wiki contains the responses by 15 states on whose responsibility is it to determine the eligibility of the candidates. In all 15 cases, the relevant state officers have claimed that it is not their responsibility to judge eligilibity of the candidates.
Robert Stevens
K. 1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the
criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic
nomination for President or Vice President shall:
a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last
election for the office of President and Vice President; and
b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the
Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate
in the Convention in good faith.
2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States. (emphasis added)
In addition, there is a link to copies of letters between the South Carolina Democratic Party and the South Carolina Election Commission claiming that the Party is responsible for determining the eligibility of the candidates.
An article on "Vetting Candidates" on the Save Our Rights Wiki contains the responses by 15 states on whose responsibility is it to determine the eligibility of the candidates. In all 15 cases, the relevant state officers have claimed that it is not their responsibility to judge eligilibity of the candidates.
Robert Stevens
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Puzzling connections in Obamagate
Yesterday the fourth law suit, challenging Obama's citizenship and Natural Born status reached the Supreme Court:
1. Philip J Berg, PA An answer from Barack Obama is due by Dec.1
2. Leo C. Donofrio, NJ The case is scheduled for conference by all 9 judges on Dec 5
3.Chris Strunck, NY filed with SCOTUS last week
4. Cort Wrotnowski, CT (second case)filed yesterday.
many more to come...
As explained earlier, Hawaii allows one to obtain a Certification of Hawaiian Live Birth based on a statement of one relative only. It means,that while Obama was born in Kenya, his grandma or grandpa could've simply gone to the Health Department in HI and stated that he was born in Hi and would've obtained a valid birth certificate. Additionally, Hi statue 338.176 allows residents of HI to register in Hi birth of their children, that were actually born in other states or other foreign countries. This statue is based on previous statues, going back to 1911, when Hi citizens worked abroad and wanted to preserve Hi citizenship for their children.
There is no corroborating evidence, no birthing records from any hospital in Hi, on the other hand there are affidavits and statements from Obama's paternal grandmother Sarah Obama, his half brother and half sister and even ambassador of Kenya His Excellency Ogengo, stating that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya.
There are numerous other facts showing split allegiance for Mr. Obama, having British, Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship and simply the fact that his father was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth, which negates his Natural Born Status and makes him ineligible to be the president of the US(Kenya was a British protectorate in 1961).
The most nauseating and most distressing factor in the Obamagate is a total lack of decency of the main stream media, that was lining up to kiss Obama's feet instead of asking him tough questions. The media is complicit in this Constitutional crisis. Now there are more and more calls to license media outlets and pollsters. If they are found to be misinforming the public, hiding matters of National importance in order to manipulate the results of the National elections, the media outlets that engage in such behavior should be stripped of their licensees. Additionally, if indeed fraud was committed, the media is guilty of aiding and abetting commission of fraud. If a foreign citizen is certified as a winner of the presidential election and a foreign citizen is put in charge of the US Army, that is treason and everyone complicit should be investigated and properly punished.
Each and every US citizen needs to send letters, e-mails, faxes, call all 50 Secretaries of States, all 50 Governors all 538 Electors, all 100 senators and all 435 representatives and demand that they do not certify this election until Mr. Obama signs a consent for release of all the necessary documents: original BC in HI, that shows the name of the Hospital and the name and signature of the doctor, birthing records from the hospital, any and all passports with all the immigration stamps, college enrollment records from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, responses from the embassies of Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia and resolution in the Supreme Court of all the legal actions relating to his citizenship. If this is not done, and Mr. Obama is certified, everyone involved in the certification process is guilty of aiding and abetting commission of fraud and possibly aiding and abetting commission of treason.
Every decent, law abiding citizen of this country needs to keep calling and writing to all of the media and all of the advertisers and sponsors of media that refuses to go on the air, on TV and refuses to cover this Constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. Tell all the advertisers and sponsors that they need to boycott all the media that refuses to provide us the truth. Lets blackout the media that gave us the blackout of the truth.
There is a step in the right direction. Recently Greta van Sustren (Fox)on her blog Greta-wire demanded production of the original birth certificates by all the major candidates. This first step has to be followed by an open discussion on the air since only a small number of viewers read he blog. Mr. Rupert Murdock (owner of Fox) and his reporters Sean Hannitty, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingram, Glenn Beck need to show decency and journalistic integrity and demand production of documents from Mr. Obama prior to certification on December the 15Th.
MSNBC has published an article on the Internet about two lawsuits currently in front of the Supreme Court challenging Mr. Obama's qualifications for presidency, that's a baby step in the right direction, however nothing was said on the air. Why? Is there any financial or other interest involved in putting this man in the White House? From what I understand MSNBC is jointly owned by Microsoft and GE. Last year, in summer of 2007 GE has sold for reported 11.6 Billion it's GE Plastics division to Basic Industries of Saudi Arabia. Were there any strings attached in this deal? It is well documented that both Obama's father and stepfather were Muslims, his school registration in Indonesia shows him as a Muslim. Persy Sutton, former president of Brooklyn Borrow appeared on video, on U-tube, and stated that he was approached by Mr. Al Mansur, known radical Muslim activist, who disclosed that the royal family of Saudi Arabia is supporting Mr. Obama and mr. Sutton was asked to provide a letter of recommendation to Harvard law school for Mr. Obama. Was there a deal made in this sale of GE plastics to BISA not to provide any negative coverage to a protege of Saudi Arabia? The Board of Microsoft and Mr. Bill Gates himself and the Board of GE together with the Board of NBC and MSNBC and all their reporters need to take a stand and demand production of necessary documents from Mr. Obama, they need to demand that he step down or be removed if he refuses to provide such documents. Same goes to (AOL)Time Warner Board that purchased Turner Broadcasting, that owns CNN. Same goes to Westinghouse, CBS, Disney, ABC, Clearchannel communications and other conglomerates. Most of our media is owned by a handful of large companies. If those companies do not provide truthful reporting and all of their journalists and anchormen are reading from the same script like a herd of zombies, we the People of the United States of America, 300 million strong need to de-monopolise our media, we need to boycott them and write to all of the law enforcement: FBI, Homeland Security, Secret Service, State Attorney's offices, US attorney's office and demand immediate investigation. We cannot have a foreigner in charge of the US army, with his finger on the red button, the red button that controls the largest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world.
By Orly Taitz drorly.blogspot.com
you can send responses and comments to dr_taitz@yahoo.com (short responses please)
1. Philip J Berg, PA An answer from Barack Obama is due by Dec.1
2. Leo C. Donofrio, NJ The case is scheduled for conference by all 9 judges on Dec 5
3.Chris Strunck, NY filed with SCOTUS last week
4. Cort Wrotnowski, CT (second case)filed yesterday.
many more to come...
As explained earlier, Hawaii allows one to obtain a Certification of Hawaiian Live Birth based on a statement of one relative only. It means,that while Obama was born in Kenya, his grandma or grandpa could've simply gone to the Health Department in HI and stated that he was born in Hi and would've obtained a valid birth certificate. Additionally, Hi statue 338.176 allows residents of HI to register in Hi birth of their children, that were actually born in other states or other foreign countries. This statue is based on previous statues, going back to 1911, when Hi citizens worked abroad and wanted to preserve Hi citizenship for their children.
There is no corroborating evidence, no birthing records from any hospital in Hi, on the other hand there are affidavits and statements from Obama's paternal grandmother Sarah Obama, his half brother and half sister and even ambassador of Kenya His Excellency Ogengo, stating that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya.
There are numerous other facts showing split allegiance for Mr. Obama, having British, Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship and simply the fact that his father was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth, which negates his Natural Born Status and makes him ineligible to be the president of the US(Kenya was a British protectorate in 1961).
The most nauseating and most distressing factor in the Obamagate is a total lack of decency of the main stream media, that was lining up to kiss Obama's feet instead of asking him tough questions. The media is complicit in this Constitutional crisis. Now there are more and more calls to license media outlets and pollsters. If they are found to be misinforming the public, hiding matters of National importance in order to manipulate the results of the National elections, the media outlets that engage in such behavior should be stripped of their licensees. Additionally, if indeed fraud was committed, the media is guilty of aiding and abetting commission of fraud. If a foreign citizen is certified as a winner of the presidential election and a foreign citizen is put in charge of the US Army, that is treason and everyone complicit should be investigated and properly punished.
Each and every US citizen needs to send letters, e-mails, faxes, call all 50 Secretaries of States, all 50 Governors all 538 Electors, all 100 senators and all 435 representatives and demand that they do not certify this election until Mr. Obama signs a consent for release of all the necessary documents: original BC in HI, that shows the name of the Hospital and the name and signature of the doctor, birthing records from the hospital, any and all passports with all the immigration stamps, college enrollment records from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, responses from the embassies of Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia and resolution in the Supreme Court of all the legal actions relating to his citizenship. If this is not done, and Mr. Obama is certified, everyone involved in the certification process is guilty of aiding and abetting commission of fraud and possibly aiding and abetting commission of treason.
Every decent, law abiding citizen of this country needs to keep calling and writing to all of the media and all of the advertisers and sponsors of media that refuses to go on the air, on TV and refuses to cover this Constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. Tell all the advertisers and sponsors that they need to boycott all the media that refuses to provide us the truth. Lets blackout the media that gave us the blackout of the truth.
There is a step in the right direction. Recently Greta van Sustren (Fox)on her blog Greta-wire demanded production of the original birth certificates by all the major candidates. This first step has to be followed by an open discussion on the air since only a small number of viewers read he blog. Mr. Rupert Murdock (owner of Fox) and his reporters Sean Hannitty, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingram, Glenn Beck need to show decency and journalistic integrity and demand production of documents from Mr. Obama prior to certification on December the 15Th.
MSNBC has published an article on the Internet about two lawsuits currently in front of the Supreme Court challenging Mr. Obama's qualifications for presidency, that's a baby step in the right direction, however nothing was said on the air. Why? Is there any financial or other interest involved in putting this man in the White House? From what I understand MSNBC is jointly owned by Microsoft and GE. Last year, in summer of 2007 GE has sold for reported 11.6 Billion it's GE Plastics division to Basic Industries of Saudi Arabia. Were there any strings attached in this deal? It is well documented that both Obama's father and stepfather were Muslims, his school registration in Indonesia shows him as a Muslim. Persy Sutton, former president of Brooklyn Borrow appeared on video, on U-tube, and stated that he was approached by Mr. Al Mansur, known radical Muslim activist, who disclosed that the royal family of Saudi Arabia is supporting Mr. Obama and mr. Sutton was asked to provide a letter of recommendation to Harvard law school for Mr. Obama. Was there a deal made in this sale of GE plastics to BISA not to provide any negative coverage to a protege of Saudi Arabia? The Board of Microsoft and Mr. Bill Gates himself and the Board of GE together with the Board of NBC and MSNBC and all their reporters need to take a stand and demand production of necessary documents from Mr. Obama, they need to demand that he step down or be removed if he refuses to provide such documents. Same goes to (AOL)Time Warner Board that purchased Turner Broadcasting, that owns CNN. Same goes to Westinghouse, CBS, Disney, ABC, Clearchannel communications and other conglomerates. Most of our media is owned by a handful of large companies. If those companies do not provide truthful reporting and all of their journalists and anchormen are reading from the same script like a herd of zombies, we the People of the United States of America, 300 million strong need to de-monopolise our media, we need to boycott them and write to all of the law enforcement: FBI, Homeland Security, Secret Service, State Attorney's offices, US attorney's office and demand immediate investigation. We cannot have a foreigner in charge of the US army, with his finger on the red button, the red button that controls the largest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world.
By Orly Taitz drorly.blogspot.com
you can send responses and comments to dr_taitz@yahoo.com (short responses please)
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
MSNBC covers the story
This piece by Pete Williams appeared on the MSNBC website on November 26, 2008:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx
A letter from a reader
msjkulig430 said...
Orly,
I think what you are doing is great! Thanks for taking ACTION!
This is unbelievable, and that fact that Our government is allowing this charade to occur is sickening. But what is beyond sickening, falling into the category of food-poisoning nauseating. You know the kind of profuse vomiting accompanied by a fever, a cold sweat and uncontrollable chills, is that Americans seem to already be use to it.
I hear comments all around the net. "It figures!" "What did you expect?" "That's our government for you." "That's American politics." "Why isn't anyone reporting this?" "What can we do?" Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!"
To me, these comments are even more nauseating, if that could even be possible. Since WHEN did America become a nation where we all throw our hands up and make jokes when our freedom, liberty, retirement and children's future hang in the balance.
People need to know that we are at WAR. I am not talking about the war in Iraq. I am talking about the war right here in our own Country. Soldier's in fox holes don't crack jokes when the enemy is shooting at them. They don't chuckle when a grenade falls in the fox hole and say, "we knew it was going to happen eventually, we might as well just stay here and get blown to pieces." Yet, that is what more and more Americans seem to be doing EVERY SINGLE DAY.
And that something is NOTHING! I am not saying everyone is doing nothing. You are, I am. However, most Americans bitch and moan and surf the net to find the latest updates on Presidential Eligibility Lawsuits and Bush Pardons and go to work the next day and bitch about the high price of gas and skyrocketing health insurance premiums and their 50 hour work week and the cost of their kid braces and then....that's it!
Do they write their congressman? No! Do they write the Supreme Court Judges? No! Do they join a Grassroots group? No! To they organize others in their community? No! Do they contact the media? No!
They sit back and wait for OTHERS to do it. Then they bitch about the results when NO ONE else does.
I'm really, really sick of it! I'm food-poisoning nauseated that most Americans talk the talk, but DON'T walk the walk and expect things will just miraculously change for the better. Reality Check: They WON'T!
Our Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they could see how complacent we have become and how much we take our freedom for granted.
When will Americans learn that if we don't spend the time and energy into fighting to take back our Country NOW, there will be no Country left to take back in the future. And, it will be the NEAR future, I guarantee you! If we continue on the path that we are on, we will see the demise of this Country in our lifetime.
So people not taking ACTION, turn off your idiot box, put down the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly, cancel that three day weekend and start taking ACTION!
Do something...ANYTHING! There are many like-minded people across this country that refuses to throw up their hands, so get off your ass and go find them.
Looking for a place, to DO SOMETHING, join
www.wethepeopleusa.ning.com. It's only a few weeks old and there are over 400 members.
November 26, 2008 12:35 AM
Orly,
I think what you are doing is great! Thanks for taking ACTION!
This is unbelievable, and that fact that Our government is allowing this charade to occur is sickening. But what is beyond sickening, falling into the category of food-poisoning nauseating. You know the kind of profuse vomiting accompanied by a fever, a cold sweat and uncontrollable chills, is that Americans seem to already be use to it.
I hear comments all around the net. "It figures!" "What did you expect?" "That's our government for you." "That's American politics." "Why isn't anyone reporting this?" "What can we do?" Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!"
To me, these comments are even more nauseating, if that could even be possible. Since WHEN did America become a nation where we all throw our hands up and make jokes when our freedom, liberty, retirement and children's future hang in the balance.
People need to know that we are at WAR. I am not talking about the war in Iraq. I am talking about the war right here in our own Country. Soldier's in fox holes don't crack jokes when the enemy is shooting at them. They don't chuckle when a grenade falls in the fox hole and say, "we knew it was going to happen eventually, we might as well just stay here and get blown to pieces." Yet, that is what more and more Americans seem to be doing EVERY SINGLE DAY.
And that something is NOTHING! I am not saying everyone is doing nothing. You are, I am. However, most Americans bitch and moan and surf the net to find the latest updates on Presidential Eligibility Lawsuits and Bush Pardons and go to work the next day and bitch about the high price of gas and skyrocketing health insurance premiums and their 50 hour work week and the cost of their kid braces and then....that's it!
Do they write their congressman? No! Do they write the Supreme Court Judges? No! Do they join a Grassroots group? No! To they organize others in their community? No! Do they contact the media? No!
They sit back and wait for OTHERS to do it. Then they bitch about the results when NO ONE else does.
I'm really, really sick of it! I'm food-poisoning nauseated that most Americans talk the talk, but DON'T walk the walk and expect things will just miraculously change for the better. Reality Check: They WON'T!
Our Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they could see how complacent we have become and how much we take our freedom for granted.
When will Americans learn that if we don't spend the time and energy into fighting to take back our Country NOW, there will be no Country left to take back in the future. And, it will be the NEAR future, I guarantee you! If we continue on the path that we are on, we will see the demise of this Country in our lifetime.
So people not taking ACTION, turn off your idiot box, put down the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly, cancel that three day weekend and start taking ACTION!
Do something...ANYTHING! There are many like-minded people across this country that refuses to throw up their hands, so get off your ass and go find them.
Looking for a place, to DO SOMETHING, join
www.wethepeopleusa.ning.com. It's only a few weeks old and there are over 400 members.
November 26, 2008 12:35 AM
Constitutional Scholar herb titus states: Electors have to investigate Obama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Proofin' the prez: Who's in charge?
Constitutional lawyer says electors have duty to investigate citizenship
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 24, 2008
9:48 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Barack Obama
A one-time vice presidential candidate who is considered an expert on the U.S. Constitution says it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain President-elect Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15.
"If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," Herb Titus, the Constitution Party's running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996, told WND today.
"I think it should be resolved. The duty is in the Electoral College. Every Obama elector that is committed to casting a vote on the 15th of December, they have a constitutional duty to make certain whether Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he said.
If the electors fail their duty and Obama proves ultimately to fail the eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution, there would be only the laborious, contentious and cumbersome process of impeachment available to those who would wish to follow the Constitution, he suggested.
The issue of Obama's citizenship has been in the news for weeks as multiple legal claims have asserted the Democrat is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. There have been claims he was born in Kenya, that he's a British subject because of his father and that he lost his citizenship in Indonesia.
(Story continues below)
Two of the cases are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and several others that have fallen by the wayside.
Also, thousands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the U.S., not just assurances from party officials.
Already, more than 75,000 petitioners have joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor Joseph Farah.
To participate, sign the petition here.
A report accompanying Farah's petition explains the many questions raised about Obama's eligibility, from an apparently fabricated "Certification of Live Birth" posted online to questions about what nation's passport he used to travel to Pakistan.
One case is scheduled for a conference among U.S. Supreme Court justices Dec. 5. Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
Do you agree with contentions made in "The Audacity of Deceit" about the impact of an Obama White House on the United States?
The case, unsuccessful at the state level, was submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas for conference Dec. 5.
Titus holds a law degree cum laude from Harvard, is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, and helped found a law school. He told WND the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted the electors, citizen voters from all the states, to determine the presidency to avoid chief executives who are indebted to political parties or court decisions.
In 1788, Titus noted, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers on the issue of the presidential election that "nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption."
"They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment," Hamilton wrote. "And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States," Hamilton wrote in support of the concept of the Electoral College.
If the electors fail, Titus said, "I think it moots the point."
"I don't think there is anything in the Constitution [that would allow a challenge based on a candidate's constitutional qualifications.]
"It would politically undermine Obama's re-election … and there may be an impeachment if someone concluded he deliberately misled the people, and knew he was not a natural-born citizen," he said.
Titus said the evidence clearly shows there are questions about Obama's birth that should be resolved. But he said he doesn't believe the courts will do anything, nor should they.
"If it's revealed it's only going to be [revealed because of] investigative journalism or by Obama himself," he said.
"It's only the Electoral College that has the duty and authority to determine is a person is qualified to be president," Titus said.
"We should act accordingly, get the names of all the electors, including McCain's electors, and urge them to do their duty," he said.
He said, however, the bottom line is that there are some people who would rather ignore the Constitution than dispense with a candidate who may be unqualified.
"Politically, [being ineligible] would be a very serious problem for [Obama,]" he said. "But there also would be people who would only shrug."
"It's up to the people. Essentially the Constitution is a covenant of the people with their government. If the people don't insist on their government officials abiding by the covenant, I don't know what you can do," he said.
Titus said the basis of a natural-born requirement traces back to the Old Testament, where Moses prophesied about the people of Israel getting a king.
"The whole notion of a natural-born citizen is designed for the purpose of making sure that the chief executive would not have politically divided loyalties," he said.
Supreme Court would decide?
Meanwhile, a veteran law enforcement officer and director of criminal justice courses says he believes the 2008 election results ultimately could come down to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a ruling eight years ago that helped put George W. Bush in the White House.
The assessment comes from James H. Hafeman, a veteran of decades in law enforcement who supervised an armed security force, taught criminal justice and directed criminal justice programs in Michigan. He submitted a commentary to WND, outlining his evidence.
Hafeman said his argument is based mostly on the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the requirements for eligibility for president, including that the candidate be a "natural-born" citizen.
While replacing a president is outlined in the Constitution, he warned the replacement of a president-elect who is found to be ineligible isn't simple.
"While many have speculated that an official declaration of Obama’s ineligibility may lead to the appointment of Joe Biden as president, the speculation is inaccurate. Since it was up to the respective political party to properly vet their candidate before a primary election, they may not qualify to be rewarded for their lack of integrity. Additionally there is no separate balloting for president and vice-president; they share the same slot. Obama's ineligibility would effectively void the entire Obama-Biden ticket," he said.
Therefore, he said, other provisions likely would come into play.
"We already know that if two candidates have an equal number of Electoral College votes, the members of the House of Representatives will collectively choose the president. Many citizens have been led to believe that it is the responsibility of the House is to decide the winner by majority vote, but that is incorrect. Members of the House of Representatives from each state would meet in a state-caucus type of meeting and vote with all congressional members from their respective state. The majority of the state's delegation would only have only one vote. Out of the 50 votes allotted among the House of Representative members, 25 plus a minimum of one vote would be required to elect the president," he wrote.
William Ball, a political science professor at Northern Michigan University, has said, "The results of the Electoral College are sent to the president of the Senate, but if there is no winner, then the House of Representatives, not the whole Congress, decides who will be president. But, in this process the State of Vermont or Wyoming with their one vote each would have as much power as California or New York."
Hafeman said the Constitution demands the same process for a situation in which a seated president becomes ineligible, but Obama won't be inaugurated until Jan. 20.
"This may be the first known case where a presidential candidate intentionally attempted to side step the specific requirements of the Constitution in order to run for the office of president," Hafeman said. "The 12th Amendment is quite clear. If the president is found ineligible, the vice-president shall become the president. However, the key is the 'president,' not the president-elect. In other words, if Mr. Obama is found ineligible to hold the office prior to his January 20, 2009, inauguration, the 12th Amendment would not necessarily be the guiding instrument for the Supreme Court.
"The Justices would be free to make their own determination regarding the specifics of the general election," Hafeman wrote.
So, Hafeman concluded, the high court may have to make some decisions.
If the worse fears about Obama's birthplace prove true, Hafeman said, the court will have to decide the consequences for providing inaccurate assurances of eligibility.
"Second, what process will be used to designate someone who will assume the office?" he wrote.
"Since all the secretaries of state will be forced to nullify the Obama-Biden ticket, the Electoral College votes would go to the next highest contender. The principle would award McCain-Palin with the total possible Electoral College votes – all 538 electors," he suggested.
"In the national-interest scenario, the question that might be asked by the Democrats may focus on the question as to whether or not they could hold an emergency national convention in order for the party to re-nominate a president and/or another vice-president candidate. If the Supreme Court declares the entire election invalid, then that may be a possibility, but it is highly unlikely since every other presidential team on the ticket were legitimate," he wrote.
"The Supreme Court may decide a new election is in order and would have to waive the two-term limitations of George W. Bush so that he can remain in office until the conclusion of the election. The continuation of his term is a viable course of action, but it may not be an action favored by the Supreme Court. Instead, the justices may simply view the anomaly as a political race with an illegitimate and disqualified opponent, which would result in a win for the McCain-Palin ticket."
On WND's new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:
"What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?" asked one reader. "Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself … Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Proofin' the prez: Who's in charge?
Constitutional lawyer says electors have duty to investigate citizenship
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 24, 2008
9:48 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Barack Obama
A one-time vice presidential candidate who is considered an expert on the U.S. Constitution says it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain President-elect Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15.
"If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," Herb Titus, the Constitution Party's running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996, told WND today.
"I think it should be resolved. The duty is in the Electoral College. Every Obama elector that is committed to casting a vote on the 15th of December, they have a constitutional duty to make certain whether Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he said.
If the electors fail their duty and Obama proves ultimately to fail the eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution, there would be only the laborious, contentious and cumbersome process of impeachment available to those who would wish to follow the Constitution, he suggested.
The issue of Obama's citizenship has been in the news for weeks as multiple legal claims have asserted the Democrat is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. There have been claims he was born in Kenya, that he's a British subject because of his father and that he lost his citizenship in Indonesia.
(Story continues below)
Two of the cases are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and several others that have fallen by the wayside.
Also, thousands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the U.S., not just assurances from party officials.
Already, more than 75,000 petitioners have joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor Joseph Farah.
To participate, sign the petition here.
A report accompanying Farah's petition explains the many questions raised about Obama's eligibility, from an apparently fabricated "Certification of Live Birth" posted online to questions about what nation's passport he used to travel to Pakistan.
One case is scheduled for a conference among U.S. Supreme Court justices Dec. 5. Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
Do you agree with contentions made in "The Audacity of Deceit" about the impact of an Obama White House on the United States?
The case, unsuccessful at the state level, was submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas for conference Dec. 5.
Titus holds a law degree cum laude from Harvard, is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court and a long list of federal court districts, and helped found a law school. He told WND the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted the electors, citizen voters from all the states, to determine the presidency to avoid chief executives who are indebted to political parties or court decisions.
In 1788, Titus noted, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers on the issue of the presidential election that "nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption."
"They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment," Hamilton wrote. "And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States," Hamilton wrote in support of the concept of the Electoral College.
If the electors fail, Titus said, "I think it moots the point."
"I don't think there is anything in the Constitution [that would allow a challenge based on a candidate's constitutional qualifications.]
"It would politically undermine Obama's re-election … and there may be an impeachment if someone concluded he deliberately misled the people, and knew he was not a natural-born citizen," he said.
Titus said the evidence clearly shows there are questions about Obama's birth that should be resolved. But he said he doesn't believe the courts will do anything, nor should they.
"If it's revealed it's only going to be [revealed because of] investigative journalism or by Obama himself," he said.
"It's only the Electoral College that has the duty and authority to determine is a person is qualified to be president," Titus said.
"We should act accordingly, get the names of all the electors, including McCain's electors, and urge them to do their duty," he said.
He said, however, the bottom line is that there are some people who would rather ignore the Constitution than dispense with a candidate who may be unqualified.
"Politically, [being ineligible] would be a very serious problem for [Obama,]" he said. "But there also would be people who would only shrug."
"It's up to the people. Essentially the Constitution is a covenant of the people with their government. If the people don't insist on their government officials abiding by the covenant, I don't know what you can do," he said.
Titus said the basis of a natural-born requirement traces back to the Old Testament, where Moses prophesied about the people of Israel getting a king.
"The whole notion of a natural-born citizen is designed for the purpose of making sure that the chief executive would not have politically divided loyalties," he said.
Supreme Court would decide?
Meanwhile, a veteran law enforcement officer and director of criminal justice courses says he believes the 2008 election results ultimately could come down to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a ruling eight years ago that helped put George W. Bush in the White House.
The assessment comes from James H. Hafeman, a veteran of decades in law enforcement who supervised an armed security force, taught criminal justice and directed criminal justice programs in Michigan. He submitted a commentary to WND, outlining his evidence.
Hafeman said his argument is based mostly on the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the requirements for eligibility for president, including that the candidate be a "natural-born" citizen.
While replacing a president is outlined in the Constitution, he warned the replacement of a president-elect who is found to be ineligible isn't simple.
"While many have speculated that an official declaration of Obama’s ineligibility may lead to the appointment of Joe Biden as president, the speculation is inaccurate. Since it was up to the respective political party to properly vet their candidate before a primary election, they may not qualify to be rewarded for their lack of integrity. Additionally there is no separate balloting for president and vice-president; they share the same slot. Obama's ineligibility would effectively void the entire Obama-Biden ticket," he said.
Therefore, he said, other provisions likely would come into play.
"We already know that if two candidates have an equal number of Electoral College votes, the members of the House of Representatives will collectively choose the president. Many citizens have been led to believe that it is the responsibility of the House is to decide the winner by majority vote, but that is incorrect. Members of the House of Representatives from each state would meet in a state-caucus type of meeting and vote with all congressional members from their respective state. The majority of the state's delegation would only have only one vote. Out of the 50 votes allotted among the House of Representative members, 25 plus a minimum of one vote would be required to elect the president," he wrote.
William Ball, a political science professor at Northern Michigan University, has said, "The results of the Electoral College are sent to the president of the Senate, but if there is no winner, then the House of Representatives, not the whole Congress, decides who will be president. But, in this process the State of Vermont or Wyoming with their one vote each would have as much power as California or New York."
Hafeman said the Constitution demands the same process for a situation in which a seated president becomes ineligible, but Obama won't be inaugurated until Jan. 20.
"This may be the first known case where a presidential candidate intentionally attempted to side step the specific requirements of the Constitution in order to run for the office of president," Hafeman said. "The 12th Amendment is quite clear. If the president is found ineligible, the vice-president shall become the president. However, the key is the 'president,' not the president-elect. In other words, if Mr. Obama is found ineligible to hold the office prior to his January 20, 2009, inauguration, the 12th Amendment would not necessarily be the guiding instrument for the Supreme Court.
"The Justices would be free to make their own determination regarding the specifics of the general election," Hafeman wrote.
So, Hafeman concluded, the high court may have to make some decisions.
If the worse fears about Obama's birthplace prove true, Hafeman said, the court will have to decide the consequences for providing inaccurate assurances of eligibility.
"Second, what process will be used to designate someone who will assume the office?" he wrote.
"Since all the secretaries of state will be forced to nullify the Obama-Biden ticket, the Electoral College votes would go to the next highest contender. The principle would award McCain-Palin with the total possible Electoral College votes – all 538 electors," he suggested.
"In the national-interest scenario, the question that might be asked by the Democrats may focus on the question as to whether or not they could hold an emergency national convention in order for the party to re-nominate a president and/or another vice-president candidate. If the Supreme Court declares the entire election invalid, then that may be a possibility, but it is highly unlikely since every other presidential team on the ticket were legitimate," he wrote.
"The Supreme Court may decide a new election is in order and would have to waive the two-term limitations of George W. Bush so that he can remain in office until the conclusion of the election. The continuation of his term is a viable course of action, but it may not be an action favored by the Supreme Court. Instead, the justices may simply view the anomaly as a political race with an illegitimate and disqualified opponent, which would result in a win for the McCain-Palin ticket."
On WND's new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:
"What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?" asked one reader. "Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself … Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?"
Judge Moore
Moore said, "If a person is not qualified, he's not qualified. It doesn't matter who it is, Republican, Democrat, black or white, rich or poor."
He added the members of the Electoral College have an obligation to verify Obama's qualifications before voting for him.
But he said the dispute may end up with court action, too.
"The courts are there to uphold the law. People have a right to change the Constitution. But until then it's the rule of law," he said.
"I don't see any reason a candidate who has such a serious question would not come forward with the truth about where he was born," Moore said.
"The Supreme Court has to answer this. They have to do it by law and not by the popularity of a person. If we do that, we might as well throw the Constitution out the window," Moore said.
"[Obama] has the answer. He knows where he was born. If he tells something that's untrue that's another matter. It's not an Obama issue, it's an American issue. It's about the Constitution of the United States."
He added the members of the Electoral College have an obligation to verify Obama's qualifications before voting for him.
But he said the dispute may end up with court action, too.
"The courts are there to uphold the law. People have a right to change the Constitution. But until then it's the rule of law," he said.
"I don't see any reason a candidate who has such a serious question would not come forward with the truth about where he was born," Moore said.
"The Supreme Court has to answer this. They have to do it by law and not by the popularity of a person. If we do that, we might as well throw the Constitution out the window," Moore said.
"[Obama] has the answer. He knows where he was born. If he tells something that's untrue that's another matter. It's not an Obama issue, it's an American issue. It's about the Constitution of the United States."
over 700 hits in less then 2 days
It has been less then 2 days since the stat counter was installed and it shows 700 hits. A large number of readers visited the blog after the Joe Thunder interview on the Plains radio, FreedomMarch.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
