Hawaii elections clerk: Obama not born here
This may be the real deal...reported by WND
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165041
Printable View
Hawaii elections clerk: Obama not born here
This may be the real deal...reported by WND
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165041
Hmm, I guess the Dems don't always screen their candidates after all:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06 ... perplexed/
Fantastic! I could not have said it better myself. I wrote a few post back about the "perfect storm" analogy. But how do you get people to read this. There is so very much more involved than just the eligibility question. It points to how far we have fallen from Constitutional law.Quote:
REQUIRED READING! NEW DEDUCTIONS AND TACTICS BY ATTY. MARIO APUZZO.
THIRD CIRCUIT HEARING IN NEWARK, NJ, FOR CDR CHARLES KERCHNER ON JUNE 29.
Atty. Mario Apuzzo clearly understands the usurpation, as evidenced by his ability to make it clearly understood.
I found the "anyone can run for office...but to take office have to prove eligibility to take that office..." But...Pelosi signed DNC claiming that Obama WAS IN FACT Constitutionally qualified... And the vetting of eligibility would have had to happen before the swearing in. So...now what?Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Isn't law wonderful!!! I have followed many court cases...this one is proving to be the most interesting of all. :!: 8O
Thanks. This truly is a must read for anyone that has any interest at all either pro or con on the eligibility issue. Extremely well written. I can't wait for the court case...if they allow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
I'm not sure this can help us, except to counter the carefully parsed statements made by Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, DoH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino, and DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo. Mr. Adams's testimony does assure us that we have the facts straight. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Adams
I believe what Mr. Adams says, but it's mostly hearsay. Mr. Adams' only first-hand testimony is
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Adams
Proving non-existence has been profoundly difficult in the past. It might be more accurate to attest that
the elections office supervisors searched diligently for Mr. Obama's birth records but found nothing.
As alluded to in the previous article and a point I made long ago...it goes to credibility. Is is "possible" that Obama thought himself to be Hawaiian born? There have been multiple "sightings" and "visual assertions" alluding to the real existence of a "Birth Certificate" but...is it also possible that the view(ers) was of a "Certification COLB" and not of a "Certificate BC?"
There are so many squiggly holes for the rats to slip thru. But Obama him self and his wife have both alluded to not being Hawaiian born.
This is sure to be at the very least interesting...if you enjoy legal ease at all.
For me the paramount issue is what Pelosi used to "verify" the DNC's she certified and Constitutionally validating Obama. I want to see her brought up a lot more than I want to see Obama brought up. Maybe Obama will point his finger at her and claim that she convinced him he was legit!!! :lol:
The birther question only lends to trustfulness and not to proof of Article II certification because with only one American parent Obama is ineligible no matter where he was born. :evil:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . ." (de Vattel)
De Vattel's predecessor, Christian Wolff, held to "citizen parents" as sufficient for natural born citizenship, regardless of birth place.
But it was de Vattel's book, The Law of Nations, which the Framers of the Constitution used as their source.
Both critieria count. Mr. Obama fails on both. He can be ousted for either reason.
The purpose here is not just to establish a Supreme Court interpretation of nbc, but to legitimately remove Mr. Obama from office as quickly as possible, before he wreaks more ruin and havoc.
Quibbling about which criterion matters (more) is a waste of perfectly good electrons, not to mention bandwidth.
If anything, the birth place issue is more likely to get traction, just because Amendment XIV is widely understood.
On the other hand, a 1401(c) citizen is uncommon, and therefore not widely understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
In the United States, a 14A citizen is one born in the country,Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
a 1401(c) citizen is one born of citizen parents, and
a natural born citizen is one born in the country of citizen parents.
__________________________________________________ __________
Apparently, speaking about Scribd, I made a mistake.
[quote="[url=http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Portals/0/May2010.pdf]In [i]Israel Today[/i] emagazine for May, 2010, p. 12, Victor Mordecai[/url]"][size=117]...on the “Round Table Showâ€
The links you provided are still active. What specifically do you see that makes you think Scribd is censoring its posted documents?Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
I haven't seen anything yet.