theteleprompter.com
Well, I didn't realize that the court would not rule immediately! I really thought that when a case was presented they either accepted or rejected the suit. I guess it's still a waiting game! :roll:
Printable View
theteleprompter.com
Well, I didn't realize that the court would not rule immediately! I really thought that when a case was presented they either accepted or rejected the suit. I guess it's still a waiting game! :roll:
Links within article are on article link at the bottom. I don't think the Bush administration wants involvement with the court cases.
We're in 'good shape' over Obama's birthplace
Presidential spokeswoman suggests there's no controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 18, 2008
10:27 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
President Bush doesn't have a significant level of concern over allegations, including those pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, that Barack Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements to be commander in chief in the United States.
"Does the White House believe there is no question at all about the birthplace, and thus the required U.S. citizenship of the president-elect?" Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, asked at a news briefing today.
"I think we're in good shape on that," responded Dana Perino, the spokeswoman for the president.
(Story continues below)
WND reported just days ago when presidential candidate Alan Keyes brought a lawsuit over the location of Obama's birth. The Constitution is specific in demanding a "natural-born" citizen of the U.S. as its president, excluding "naturalized" citizens and others.
Alan Keyes
The lawsuit said the California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. There have been various reports – and a multitude of questions raised – about whether Obama was born in the U.S., and even if he was, whether he retained citizenship in Indonesia.
The legal action was just the latest in a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural-born citizen."
Get Brad O'Leary's blockbuster book detailing the agenda for the upcoming Obama White House, "The Audacity of Deceit."
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as he stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born, but there have been suggestions he actually was born in Kenya.
The Keyes action challenges: "Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
An Obama spokesperson interviewed by WND described the lawsuits as "garbage."
But last week, WND reported more than half a dozen other legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding Obama's decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status.
Among the states where cases are being tracked are Ohio, Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Hawaii. There were also reports of other cases in Utah, Wyoming, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, California and Virginia.
In another question, Kinsolving asked, "Sunday's lead editorial in The New York Times had this statement: 'We believe the military needs 65,000 additional Army troops, and the 27,000 additional Marines that Congress finally pushed President Bush into seeking.' What is the White House reaction to that statement?"
"Was that in Afghanistan, or in general?" Perino said. "I don't know. I didn't read The New York Times editorial this weekend, so I don't know."
Do you have a tough question you'd like to ask the White House? WND's MR. PRESIDENT! forum is your big chance.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=81363
You can not lose U S citizenship as a result of anything your parents do. So if Obama was adopted by his step father and thus given Indonesian citizenship he would still have U S citizenship natural born status if he was born in Hawaii. He would not have to reclaim it at age 21 or whatever. His school records in Indonesia say he was born in Hawaii. Also even if he was born in Kenya he would still be a U S citizen since the law was amended to include someone whose mother was 14 and had been only 2 years in the U S prior to giving birth in a foreign country and it was amended all the way back to 1952 so that would cover Obama under those circumstances.
Justthatguy wrote
How do you figure when he changed to Indonesian that country doesn't allow dual citizenship, so he would have to relinquish his us citizenship. And even if he got it back it would change from a natural born status to naturalized us citizen which would disqualify him from the presidency. Just watch the video on obamacrimes.com they explain in detail the difference.Quote:
So if Obama was adopted by his step father and thus given Indonesian citizenship he would still have U S citizenship natural born status if he was born in Hawaii.
Those three sequential words -- "natural born citizen" -- appear to have never undergone careful analysis in respect to a Presidential candidate by the nation's highest court. Why? Because they have been sparsely used by the Constitutional framers, appearing only in Article II itself, then briefly in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was then REPEALED in 1795 and replaced by a new statutory scheme that, as to children of American citizenS (both parents? a global whole?) born overseas, had the same provisions EXCEPT THAT "natural born" had been DELETED in favor of using solely "citizens." Since many of the original framers would have comprised the Congressional sessions in 1790 and 1795, one has to assume some DELIBERATION on their part in deciding to enact a new law that took care in excising two words.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
The beauty of Donofrio's lawsuit is that it ASSUMES that Obama is going to be able to produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawai'i. And his suit essentially says "so what?" because it looks to the need for a court to determine if the known condition of dual citizenship at birth comprises the impediment. It forces the Court to look at what went into the framers' thinking, which was an abhorrence for any "split allegiances" to a foreign power.
A series of posts located below on another website takes a line-of-possible-argumentation through some stages which points to where any pleading, AT THE LEAST, should plead an "alternative theory" that someone who at his/her birth was "afflicted by" a situation of dual citizenship and hence dual loyalties may have been born in circumstances making Presidential eligibility impermissible.
All the statutory enactments over time do not rise to what the Constitution itself says (because it is "supreme law"), and all the caselaw over time which dealt with mere "citizenship" fact patterns do not rise to the circumstances of a "citizen" wishing to be found eligible for Highest Office. What is truly needed is a well-pleaded case which is one of first impression for those three words ,,, NATURAL .... BORN .... CITIZEN. There is an article cross-linked in one of the posts below by a Constitutional scholar out in California.
http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11 ... mment-3121
http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11 ... mment-3123
Someone else wrote an article -- which Leo Donofrio (on the radio last night) said was in the U of Michigan law review -- and it had laid out the template that Leo Donofrio is essentially following to avoid being challenged on standing. Author of the article this guy, a law professor at Ohio State, who attended Harvard and Yale, and is apparently up at Harvard Law temporarily doing some teaching/research this semester.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=52
This entire issue is a serious area for Constitutional scholars or the U.S. Senate would not have written a Resolution (co-sponsored by Obama) which expressed its own non-binding "sense of the Senate" with respect to John McCain based upon his birth outside the formal U.S.
The problem with the two lawsuits which have gotten all the publicity so far is that they find an issue (rooted in the candidates' births) HIJACKED by people who have serious "wingnut" aspects to their own personal histories. Berg was fined $10,000 not too many years ago and has a blot on his record from that standpoint.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263
Andy Martin appears to have been unable to get State of Illinois to agree to let him even sit for a bar exam, according to one published report claiming he had a psychiatric impediment, and other reports cite to cases where he has used language in pleadings of some of his past litigations that is simply beyond the pale of what courts or decent citizens might find tolerable.
If you're going to pursue a suit, then it would be best to frame pleadings in ways that bring forth high-minded and recognized areas of legal scholarship.
It's also important to frame the issues in such a way that make production of an original birth certificate a development that DOES NOT TORPEDO THE CASE.
The other suits are all going to wither on the vine when the original birth certificate is trotted out by Obama, and those suits will end up conceding -- as a determination of FACT -- a status of natural born citizen attributed to a birth on the American soil of Hawaii.
Donofrio's suit frames the issue as one where the court must rule as a matter of LAW what those three words "natural born citizen" meant to the founding fathers. It forces them to go digging into the Federalist Papers and all kinds of historic documents surrounding the Constitutional Convention to determine intentions.
Even as late as the 1800's when the 14th Amendment was adopted, the debate made birth on American soil not the SOLE determinant of citizenship but added the requirement of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States (its laws, and some could argue, only its laws). There was debate (a "legislative history") that pointed out how Native Americans born on such soil WOULD NOT be citizens. Why? Split loyalty owed to their tribes and jurisdiction over them maintained by their tribes. There was debate that pointed out how aliens' children who happened to be born on American soil ALSO WOULD NOT be citizens. Why? A foreign sovereign state also had "jurisdiction" over them.
Read this article, published in July 2008, very carefully since it points to American citizenship being something more than the mere accident of birth which, in England and on British soil, created the "king's subjects" under a monarchy.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/ ... 8&month=07
There are nuances about the law in this case. People who think that the original birth certificate is the ONLY thing and who are prepared to concede an issue needing legal clarification as one that will be settled by merely a factual proof (a document) are going to be blindsided, and made to look ridiculous by the mainstream media.
Donofrio v Obama Citizenship
Case Moves To New
Supreme Court Level
By Devvy Kidd
11-19-8
Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference."
On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as:
Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey
United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407
Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas.
This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18:
http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007 ... buted-for- conference-on.html
Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process.
This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."
Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on November 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.
http://www.rense.com/general84/scotus.htm
Oh please let it be so! Read this article....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynne
Way to GO, Leo!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcsjcm
On NBC 8O Who'd have ever thought?
Did you happen to see this post?
When Obama Jr. was born, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Obama being subject to British jurisdiction "at birth" bars him from being eligible to be POTUS. The Framers did not want future Commander in Chiefs with split loyalities. SCOTUS will decide.
Has that been one of the arguing points concerning his citizenship? I don't recall seeing it before.
Even if the laws or regulations are changed to permit Obama being President I still think it is great this issue is being brought to light, maybe it will get more people to think about the Constitution more.
As of today, with the election of Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), there are 58 Democratic Senators. If either of the other two contested elections go to the Democrat, that will make 59 Democrats + Sen. McCain who can pass a filibuster-proof resolution making Barack Obama II a "natural born s-s-s-s-Citizen, just as the s-s-s-Senate made s-s-s-s-Sen. McCain a natural born s-s-s-s-Citizen in April, 2008. Fair's-s-s-s fair."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowman
What a bunch of snakes.
The measure introduced last spring was a "sense of the Senate" resolution and has no binding effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
The job of changing the Constitution requires a constitutional amendment. The job of interpreting the Constitution is for the Supreme Court.
All 100 Senators could vote unanimously that they "shared the same sense" and it wouldn't change the rules of the game by one iota. :lol:
I might be wrong but I don't think this would require a Constitutional Amendment, all it would take is a bill changing or clarifying who is a "natural born citizen", after all there already exists laws stating who is a natural born citizen, they would just expand on the current laws as needed. Or maybe all it would take is a statement by Obama renouncing any foreign citizenship(s) he may have had or has.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowman
Oh let obama try THAT. He would be openly admitting to perpetrating an outright fraud and attempting to seize control of our government through fraudulent means.
And then the question REALLY becomes...moreso than now even.....WHO is he working for and how many others within our government were involved in this.
I don't know Bowman, this whole things gets more troubling by the minute and the ppossibilities we're discussing here seem unimagineable. We are literally talking about NUMEROUS members of our government being involved in a plot to overthrow our system by installing a usurper and revealing themselves as being enemies of the state guilty of treason. 8O
********Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynne
Question: Could infant Obama have legally traveled on a British passport?
1. Obama was supposedly born on Aug. 4,1961.
2. For instance, if Obama's father decided to take infant Obama to Kenya a few weeks later, could baby Obama have traveled on a British passport, because, as I understand it, he inherited British citizenship from his British-citizen father, Obama senior?
There are many "assumptions" that natural born citizen must simply mean being born on American soil and that it's OK to just pass a bill to clarify what Congress wants it to mean. Repeat: The job of "clarifying" what the Constitution says is the job of the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowman
"Citizen" is a word used in the Constitution but it was not defined in the 1787 timeframe when the Constitution was written. How did it GET defined? In the 14th Amendment, that's how. It took until 1868 for a definition to be written which rose to the same stature ("Supreme" law of the land) as the original document which had used (but not then defined) the word "citizen."
Seems to me that "Natural Born" is pretty self descriptive. They can try and twist this any way they want. I would be shocked if it was determined that Natural Born meant anything other than "one who is born on U.S. soil."
---------------------------------
I might be wrong but I don't think this would require a Constitutional Amendment, all it would take is a bill changing or clarifying who is a "natural born citizen", after all there already exists laws stating who is a natural born citizen, they would just expand on the current laws as needed. Or maybe all it would take is a statement by Obama renouncing any foreign citizenship(s) he may have had or has.[/quote]
There are many "assumptions" that natural born citizen must simply mean being born on American soil and that it's OK to just pass a bill to clarify what Congress wants it to mean. Repeat: The job of "clarifying" what the Constitution says is the job of the court.
"Citizen" is a word used in the Constitution but it was not defined in the 1787 timeframe when the Constitution was written. How did it GET defined? In the 14th Amendment, that's how. It took until 1868 for a definition to be written which rose to the same stature ("Supreme" law of the land) as the original document which had used (but not then defined) the word "citizen."[/quote]
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." - Amendment XIV
The natural consequences are:
"All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States," and
"All persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
etc. ...
Bingo ... and in 1868, the sponsor of the "citizenship clause" and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee engaged in recorded debate in Congress to explain their intentions when the 14th Amendment was drafted and being prepped for a vote in Congress and dispatch to the States for full ratification. Among those intentions were that the "jurisdiction" which must be exercised by the U.S. over one who would be a citizen must be EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction. They noted that Indians would not be citizens. (Indeed, it took a later 1924 law to allow Indians to become citizens, whether they were born on a reservation or outside of tribal lands.] They noted that the children of ALIENS would not become citizens, even if born on American soil. A later Supreme Court decision -- which got a 5-4 split opinion and a vehement dissent by the Chief Justice -- was later to decide that the child of two Chinese immigrants who were legally in the country should be seen to have U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil but a strict constructionist would have opined that that particular SCOTUS decision created "bad law".Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
A strict constructionist, in fact, would take a look at the language of the Constitution itself and its delegation to Congress that which Congress is "allowed" to do, and ponder whether Congress can do ANYTHING more than determine the bounds of allowing people to become NATURALIZED citizens, while not allowing Congress -- through mere legislation -- to tamper with the definition of the word "citizen" itself. "Citizen" is used in the Constitution and became defined by the 14th Amendment, and Article I, Section 8 sets forth the powers allowed to the Legislative branch ...
Establishing "an uniform Rule of Naturalization" doesn't seem to rise to the level of giving Congress unfettered power (absent Constitutional Amendment) to go legislating alternative definitions nor conditions nor interpretations of "citizen" except as to "naturalized citizens" ...Quote:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
etc. etc. etc.
Well Stated..!! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Lynne
Mirse, here are two equally important questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by mirse
On her flight, rescheduled after she gave birth, could Anna (Dunham) Obama have brought along her newborn legally, on a courtesy pass given with her reissued ticket, or even illegally, as a non-paying stowaway?
In August, 1961, could Anna (Dunham) Obama, a U.S. citizen with a U.S. passport, have flown from Kenya to Hawaii carrying her two-day-old infant, either with no paperwork at all, or with just a Consular Report of Birth (FS-240) and no passport?
FOIA for his FS-240 at Vital Records Section, Passport Services, Washington, DC, anyone?
U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Consular Affairs
Documentation of United States Citizens Born
Abroad Who Acquire Citizenship At Birth
The birth of a child abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s) should be reported as soon as possible to the nearest American consular office for the purpose of establishing an official record of the child's claim to U.S. citizenship at birth. The official record is in the form of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America. This document, referred to as the Consular Report of Birth or FS-240, is considered a basic United States citizenship document. An original FS-240 is furnished to the parent(s) at the time the registration is approved.
REPORTING THE BIRTH
A Consular Report of Birth can be prepared only at an American consular office overseas while the child is under the age of 18. Usually, in order to establish the child's citizenship under the appropriate provisions of U.S. law, the following documents must be submitted:
(1) an official record of the child's foreign birth;
(2) evidence of the parent(s)' U.S. citizenship (e.g., a certified birth certificate, current U.S.
passport, or Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship);
(3) evidence of the parents' marriage, if applicable; and
(4) affidavits of parent(s)' residence and physical presence in the United States.
In certain cases, it may be necessary to submit additional documents, including affidavits of paternity and support, divorce decrees from prior marriages, or medical reports of blood compatibility. All evidentiary documents should be certified as true copies of the originals by the registrar of the office wherein each document was issued. A service fee of $65 is prescribed under the provisions of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 22.1, item 9, for a Consular Report of Birth.
NOTE: Consular Reports of Birth are not available for persons born in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Panama Canal Zone before October 1, 1979, the Philippines before July 4, 1946, American Samoa, Guam, Swains Island, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the former U.S. Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands. Birth certificates for those areas, except the Panama Canal Zone, must be obtained from their respective offices of vital statistics. Panama Canal Zone birth certificates should be requested through the Vital Records Section of Passport Services (see address below.) The fees are the same as those for DS-1350.
DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE
Consular Report of Birth (FS-240)
On November 1, 1990, the Department of State ceased issuing multiple copies of the Consular Report of Birth (FS-240). As of that date, a new format for the FS-240 went into effect. All previously issued FS-240s are acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship (Public Law 97-241 - Aug. 24, 1982). To obtain a replacement for a lost or mutilated document, please submit a notarized written request including the original FS-240 or a notarized affidavit concerning the loss of the FS-240 and a $30 fee, payable to the "Department of State."
Might Anna (Dunham) Obama have designated Barack Obama II as "Father Unknown" in order to fly from Kenya to Hawaii without the father's notarized letter of permission? That would be embarrassing later.
Quote:
Generally, the rule is children who are US citizens under the age of 18, traveling with one parent or a legal guardian, the parent or Legal guardian must show legal documents proving they have the right to travel with these children outside of the borders of the United states. Again all of these documents must be ORIGINAL (no photocopies) and the acceptable documents are...
A NOTARIZED letter of permission signed by the co-parent (in cases of joint custody), parents or legal guardian.
An ORIGINAL court issued Sole custody documents
FATHER UNKNOWN noted on the child's birth certificate
An OFFICIAL death certificate of the deceased parent or legal guardian.
Official Adoption decree
www.vacationkids.com/travelarticles/passport.php
I must thank all who have posted on this thread. I just found it linked on WND. I read every post and learned a few things I was not already aware of.
When the Rep. Gov. of Hawaii sealed the birth certificate for Pres. Elect Uh-bama she gave a clue as to who could get access to it.
"Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant."
Quoted from
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
The important line is
a person having a common ancestor with the registrant,
That person is Vice President Cheney
"But could it be possible that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Vice President Dick Cheney share a common ancestor?
Cheney's wife Lynne says yes.
In an interview on MSNBC Tuesday afternoon, Mrs. Cheney said that in the course of researching her husband's genealogy for her new book, "Blue Skies, No Fences," she discovered that the two public figures share an ancestor eight generations ago."
Quoted from
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...obama-related/
I think it is odd that Gov. Lingle would throw out that life line and no one picked up on it. I sent an email to Rush, Hannity, and Jerome Corsi of WND. No response from anyone as of yet.
Be Blessed
There's a little more to the story about the report that the Gov.of Hawai'i or a Judge "sealed" the original birth record shortly after the October hearing in Hawaiian court on the Martin lawsuit. It's not clear if Andy Martin, or Phil Berg, or someone else started that rumor. But it got reported at the Sonoran, a newspaper in Arizona.Quote:
Originally Posted by armbruster512
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/200 ... Judge.html
If you scroll down into that link, you'll find that the newspaper was contacted by the State of Hawai'i -- shortly after reporting about the story -- and the e-mail from Hawaii asked for a retraction, and informed the Sonoran that there had been no sealing. The newspaper left the story standing, and just printed what it had gotten from Hawaii. The letter from the state government went on to specify what the rules were, for obtaining original birth certificates, and why privacy laws prevented just anybody asking for someone else's certificate. The Sonoran news article had been written by Linda Bentley.
Therefore, claims you might read about on the Internet, to the effect that there was ever a "sealing" of the original certificate to keep it from being seen or released, are not true. The declination to publicly release it stems from privacy laws, and not from any sealing.Quote:
Aloha
We would like to request an immediate retraction in Linda Bentley's Oct. 29 article "Judge dismisses Obama lawsuit over lack of standing; Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle seals Obama's birth records."
The subhead, and the statement in the article, "Lingle placed Obama’s birth records under seal and instructed the Hawaii Department of Health, under no condition may it provide access to the original document unless Obama authorizes it to be released," are not true.
The Governor did not make any order relating to this matter. Vital records are administered through the state Department of Health.
Under Hawaii state law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18 ), copies of vital records may only be released to those who have a tangible relationship to the person whose record is being sought.
Neither the Governor's office, nor any other office in the State of Hawai'i, can provide information concerning birth certificates, or produce birth certificates, to anyone except those who are listed in the law governing vital statistics records. Vital statistics records, such as birth certificates, are protected by strict confidentiality requirements. Specifically, pursuant to section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), the Department of Health, which maintains these records, may not allow the inspection of a birth certificate, or issue a certified copy of a birth certificate, or disclose any information contained in a birth certificate, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record:
(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8 ) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
You can find the complete statute at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur..._0338-0018.htm
In addition, the Hawaii Supreme Court has issued an order denying Mr. Andy Martin's petition to have the document releaesed. The Courty's order is attached.
Thank you.
I hate to admit this but I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell that anything will be done in the event that Obama is determined to be ineligible for President. Don't get me wrong, I am deeply concerned over this. I think this issue will be buried, people who filed the lawsuits will be smeared and dismissed and all of us who want the truth will be labeled as conspiracy theory whack jobs. It saddens and sickens me but I think this is what will happen. I have signed the petitions, watched this whole thing unraveling and done what I can do. Let's see if our leaders have the courage and guts to carry this issue through to the end.
You're right that after Gore v. Bush in 2000, the court is probably timid. Meanwhile, a local town forum in NJ near where plaintiff Donofrio won a poker tournament (Atlantic City) has some information showing how the issue has been treated in areas outside the usual suspects of blogs and "conspiracy theory whack jobs" as you phrased it,Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
http://www.ventnorevoice.com/bulletinbo ... php?t=1124
Update on Leo's website
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
then there's an image with a URL ofQuote:
US SUPREME COURT TAKES EXTRAORDINARY EXPEDITED ACTION IN FAST TRACKING NJ CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING '08 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
I am awaiting clarification from the Clerk's office at the United States Supreme Court as to whether my stay application has now been accepted in lieu of a more formal full petition for certiorari (and/or mandamus or prohibition). Such a transformation is a rare and significant emergency procedure. It was used in Bush v. Gore, a case I have relied on in my brief.
We do know the case has certainly been "DISTRIBUTED for Conference", a process usually reserved for full petitions of certiorari. Stays are usually dealt with in a different manner. As to a stay application, a single Justice may; a) deny the stay; b) grant the stay; c) refer the stay to the full Court.
My stay application was originally denied by Justice Souter. So, under Rule 22.4, I renewed it to Justice Thomas who did not deny it. The sparse reporting on this issue I have seen today has failed to stress how unique such a situation is to Supreme Court practice. The vast majority of stay applications are denied. And once denied, a renewed application is truly a desperate measure the success of which heralds one of the rarest birds in Supreme Court history.
The relief I requested, a stay of the national election and a finding that candidates Obama, McCain and Calero be held ineligible to hold the office of President, has also not been granted at this time. So that leaves option "c)": Justice Thomas has referred the case to the full court. That much is clear from looking at the docket.
What isn't clear is whether the full court has already examined the referral and taken the extraordinary action of accepting the stay application as if it were a full petition for writ of certiorari which was done in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 at 98 (2000):
"The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari." (Emphasis added.)
It's not clear that SCOTUS precedent would allow a stay application to be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference" without it first having been transformed by the court into a full petition. I don't know if such a transformation could be sanctioned by Justice Thomas by himself. Again, I'm waiting for an official disposition notice from the Clerk's office. Regardless, either the full court has set this for Conference, or Justice Thomas has done it on his own. Either way, it signifies an affirmative action inside the US Supreme Court testifying to the serious issues raised by this law suit.
Rather than explain the intense pre-requisites pertaining to a stay surviving denial, I've uploaded the following page from SUPREME COURT PRACTICE, 8th Edition, the ultimate SCOTUS resource:
http://www.blogtext.org/userFiles/natur ... cation.JPG
Chambliss campaign Alert!
Click here:
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-138691.html
None of these law suits are going to work, just my opinion.
Who could ask for more?Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hawai'i
More coverage about these lawsuits on eligibility
Newspaper in Arizona reports about Leo
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/200 ... homas.html
A report that the "Real Clear Politics" website has refused to cover these cases and has deleted comments about them.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/200 ... write-now/
Another
http://www.americasright.com/2008/11/us ... -berg.html
A post somewhere else mentioned that DRUDGE report was carrying information for the first time, but it didn't have a link.
Other news (gloomy)
http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollar ... 5720081120
I found this bit of information on
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/ ... &;page=247
I am posting it since it may help in determining what natural born actually means. This I believe would disqualify Barack even if he were born in Hawaii. Please read the whole thing.
[b]The term “natural bornâ€
Was Daddy ever a resident?Quote:
Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.
Barack Obama II's origins are well-known in Kenya and Uganda.
Ugandans have formed a group to mobilise support for Kenyan born-senator, Barack Obama for the US presidency.
But the archived article has removed the phrase "Kenyan born-" from the original article.
Ugandans have formed a group to mobilise support for senator Barack Obama's bid for the US presidency.
If you look at the page source for the revised article, you can see possible artifacts of changes to this paragraph and where this line was apparently altered.
__________________________
Kenya's Ambassador to the United States, H.E. Peter Ogego
Listen to Mr. Ogego's voice in this video for a few minutes, beginning at 18:32. There's no need to listen for 67 minutes, just listen long enough that you can recognize his voice.
Next, listen to this audio track, beginning at 2:35, and recognize Mr. Ogego's voice.
At 12:30, he says that Sen. Obama's birthplace in Kenya is already well-known.
__________________________
Mama Sarah Onyongo Obama, step-mother of Barack Obama Snr.
The 2005 calendar on her wall reads, "Kenyan Wonder-Boy in the U.S.".
Mama Sarah says "Barack ñate dhailani." In the Luo dialect of Swahili, this means,
"Barack is a son of this village," or "Barack born of this village."
Audio mirrored here.
The tape of the phone call to Kenya is nearly unintelligible,
but according to the "Sarah Obama Interview Transcript," when asked if she was present when he was born in Kenya, she said, "Yes".
Sarah Obama Interview Transcript:
Two Rings:
Kweli Shuhudia: Hello? [Back ground music]
Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae 2
Ron McRae: Brother Kweli? [music] Brother Kweli? This is Brother McRae.
Kweli Shuhudia: Yes.
Ron McRae: Okay. How are you today?
Kweli Shuhudia: Now. We are okay. How are you?
Ron McRae: I’m doing very well. You said you are there with, uh, Barack Obama’s grandmother?
Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. I am just in the home now. She is right here. We’re, we’re waiting to talk in a uh long conversation. And [unitelligible] a good family and she is ready to talk.
Ron McRae: Good. She’s not there at the present?
Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. She’s here right now.
Ron McRae: Okay. Is it possible to speak to her?
Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. It is possible. I ah, along with her and her family, uh, you and me.
Ron McRae: Uh, is it possible for you to put her on the speaker phone and translate for me?
Kweli Shuhudia: Yes! Yes! I will do that.
Ron McRae: Okay.
Kweli Shuhudia: Yes?
Ron McRae: Okay.
Kweli Shuhudia: Yes. Go ahead [he then speaks to her in Swahili]
Sarah Obama: [Replies to him in Swahili]
Ron McRae: Ms. Obama?
Kweli Shuhudia: Yes go ahead.
Ron McRae: Mrs. Obama, my name is bishop Ron McRae.
Kweli Shuhudia: Ametaja bishop Ron McRae, Ron McRae. Go ahead.
Ron McRae: I am, I am the, I am the bishop of the Anabaptists Churches of North America.
Kweli Shuhudia: Yeye niaskofu Anabaptists makaisa.
Sarah Obama: Shikamooo! [Hello, good day].
Mr. Ogombe: Are you speaking English and , and we will tell her in Luo. Okay?
Ron McRae: Now give me that again. Explain it to me again.
Ogombe: It is welcome. She is very grateful for your interest.
Ron McRae: Okay. Thank you! Tell her I count it a great honor to speak to her since her son Barack Obama is running for President of the United States.
Ogombe: Eh makasema yuko kiuu mgomba Obama kwa mwenyekiti America. Yah, she says she is very helpful for got to you please pray for Obama. She is asking you to pray for him. For Obama.
Ron McRae: Yes Sir. Uh…Ms. Obama, you can rest assured that I am praying for your son, and your grandson.
Ogombe: Yes. It is helpful also towards it is beginning to help.
Ron McRae: Okay.
Sarah Obama: [unitelligible from Ms. Obama because of room noise].
Ogombe: She says she is covet your prayers for he [unintelligible] her son.
Ron McRae: Okay. And tell her that I will be coming there in December. I would like to come by and meet with her and pray with her.
Ogombe: Yes. Ye atakuwa mwezi Desemba.
Kweli Shuhudia: In December. He will come in December and he wants to come and talk with you.
Sarah Obama: [unitelligible]
Ogombe: Oh she says you're so encourage her. Your coming in December so you can talk together with her.
Ron McRae: Amen. I am, I am so thankful. Could I ask her, uh, could I ask her about his, uh, his, his, his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I, when I come to Kenya in December. Uh, was she present when he was, was she present when he was born in Kenya?
Ogombe to Sarah Obama: Alikuma zalima Obama [unintelligible].
Kweli Shuhudia: He is asking her, he wants to know something was ah was she present when he was born?
Ogombe: Yes. She says, "Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born."
Where are the delivery room witnesses from the hospital in Hawaii?
For a 1961 birth, a Labor & Delivery nurse might be as young as 66 now.
An OB-GYN might be as young as 75.
Surely someone who was in that delivery room in Hawaii is alive and remembers an 18-year-old mother giving birth to a mixed-race baby. In 1961, in Honolulu, that would not have been an everyday occurrence. With all the hullabaloo and controversy about Barack Obama's birth in Honolulu now, someone would remember it.
Unless it never happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcsjcm
The irregular interpretation of "natural born Citizen" to mean "inherited from one's father or according to one's birthplace or possibly both, but not necessarily both," was used in the 1700's under Common Law. It had no place within U.S. jurisdiction. We fought the Revolutionary War to free ourselves and our posterity from such grasping overreaches and endless abuses by the Crown.Quote:
Originally Posted by PA-RIVER
The Framers looked to Common Law for precedent, except concerning nationality, loyalty, citizenship, and similar matters where the notion of "Crown and subjects" did not apply to free men. For such, the Framers looked to international law, which for that day Emerich de Vattel had merely codified, not defined, in his reference text on international law, The Law of Nations (1758 ).
******Quote:
Originally Posted by jcsjcm
jcsjcm: This is mirse.
Is there anyway you can find out what Hawaii statue/law was in place in
1961 that allowed a parent to obtain a Hawaii birth certificate even if the child was born in another country or another state?
The reason I ask is this: On another site, a poster said that the Keyes lawsuit against Obama was poorly written and was wrong when it cited Hawaii statue 338-178, because the statue was not even written when Obama was born.
The poster said the statue was written when Obama was a young adult, and so it could NOT have applied to Obama when he was born in Aug. 1961.
Thanks for your help.
Donofrio is just plain wrong, as is Devvy Kidd.
Also, it doesn't matter which other countries considered him a citizen at whatever point in time. What matters is whether the US considered him a citizen. We are not in the habit of allowing podunk third world countries or former masters of America to decide who is and is not a citizen of ours.
He may be a citizen of the United States, but he is not a natural born which is a requirement for the President and Vice President per our Constitution. Shall we throw out our Constitution because it isn't worth fighting for? I just don't get this!Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Hey mirse,
I do know what your talking about but I also have only seen this information pasted in other blogs. I'm not sure if I can find something on this but I will give it a shot.
I still can't believe that this is still being allowed to go on! Americans are a bunch of push overs, no one speaks up for anything constitutional anymore.... maybe a select few...but not near enough. I feel betrayed by my fellow citizens and media! And especially Obama for doing this to us! :evil:
First of all where's the evidence that Obama was legally adopted by his step father? That would have to be done in a U S court to make it legal in the U S. If they did it in Indonesia it wouldn't be accepted in the U S unless they filed papers to that effect. But where's that evidence? There isn't any.Even if it had been done it wasn't him that did it. It was his step father and mother who did it. No child can lose their citizenship because of something their parents do. So even if they had done it Obama would still be a natural born U S citizen assuming he was born in Hawaii.Quote:
Originally Posted by 93camaro