You guys are sounding more and more like the Founding Fathers every day.
Congratulations!
Printable View
You guys are sounding more and more like the Founding Fathers every day.
Congratulations!
Highlander, the only difference is, our forefathers would have these treasonous snakes hanging from a tree!Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Yup or at least tarred and featheredQuote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
On "birthers," heed "Radio Patriot," not Glenn Beck
By Michael Gaynor
January 6, 2010
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/100106
The logical conclusion is that there is SOMETHING on the document that Obama does not want to share with the American people. Even the Beckster should realize that!
Glenn Beck is an Obama critic, but he's not a "birther" and ridicules "birthers" as the dumbest of the dumb and even helpful to Obama. "Radio Patriot" Andrea Shea King, a "birther," knows better.
World Net Daily's Drew Zahn, "Glenn Beck on birther issue: 'Dumbest thing I've ever heard'" (January 4, 2009) ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120992 ):
"On the air today, popular radio host Glenn Beck mocked 'birthers' and claimed there is a concerted campaign to get those questioning Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility onto the airwaves — a strategy Beck said would actually benefit Obama.
"'There's always games being played behind the scenes at a talk radio show,' Beck said. 'Rush has always called them seminar callers. But instead of being coy with the seminar callers or with you, I'm just going to expose the game that is going on. Today there is a concerted effort on all radio stations to get birthers on the air.'
"'I have to tell you, are you working for the Barack Obama administration?' Beck scoffed. 'I mean, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.'"
It's Beck's scoffing that's dumb.
This morning on "Fox & Friends" there was a report that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt really died of a brain tumor, not a stroke, and his brain tumor was concealed for political purposes.
What strikes some (or even most) as unbelievable (or "dumb") may be true.
Beck calls radical Obamaton and ACORN 8 leader his "Rosa Parks," so his own capacity for "dumbness" is not in doubt.
Beck just proved that again this year by joining the big dog at Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, in mocking the "birthers."
I don't know where Obama was born, but I believe that "birthers" are right to respect the United States Constitution and demand proof that Obama is eligible to be President and the burden of proof on that issue belongs on Obama.
In 2008 John McCain quickly produced his birth certificate, but Obama still has not done so.
Obama's refusal to produce his birth certificate is NOT proof that he was born in Kenya, but it IS a strong sign that he's hiding SOMETHING.
Zahn:
"The ongoing dialogue then spun off into ridicule as Beck caricatured those who question the sitting president's eligibility with straw-man arguments reminiscent of jibes made by Obama's apologists in other news outlets.
"Beck defined birthers as people who believe Obama was born in Kenya or other foreign country, was raised as a Manchurian candidate and somehow brainwashed Hillary Clinton into not exposing his fraud. According to Beck's running joke, birthers believe someone — maybe Obama's KGB 'control' — preemptively placed Obama's birth announcement in 1961 Hawaiian newspapers with a 'roadmap' of getting an African man into office.
"As for Obama producing a long-form birth certificate to actually prove his place of birth, Beck questioned, 'Why do that when these people ["birthers"] are so discrediting themselves?'"
But, as Zahn put it: "The 'certification of live birth' posted online and widely touted as 'Obama's birth certificate' does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same 'short-form' document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true 'long-form" birth certificate — which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician — is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny."
Scrutiny of Obama (in sharp contrast to Sarah Palin) is something that the liberal media establishment avoided and Fox News did not do nearly well enough.
Perhaps Beck and O'Reilly mock the "birthers" because they too would be embarrassed if the true "long form" birth certificate were made public and contained any significant information that would bear on either Obama's eligibility or suitability to be President of the United States. (It was not until long after Obama was inaugurated that those two Fox News hosts focused on The New York Times killing an Obama/ACORN expose on October 21, 2008, even though I reported it on the Internet the next day.)
Zahn:
"The radio host further argued that by distracting the public from actionable issues, 'birthers' have become 'a dream come true' for Obama, an ideal situation akin to the fantasies of adolescent boys after Hollywood bombshells.
"'Barack Obama looks at the birthers as Megan Fox,' Beck said, referring to the star and sex symbol of the popular 'Transformers' films."
Message to Beck: As a faithful student of community organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama has followed his rules for radicals. Like a faithful Alinskyite, you too ridicule the "birthers." But ridicule is not a substitute for Obama's original birth certificate.
Zahn rightly rebutted Beck:
"'Birthers'...reflect a far greater diversity of opinion than is assumed by Beck's characterization. For example, while the term has been applied to anyone questioning Obama's eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' clause, many 'birthers' don't doubt Obama's Hawaiian birth, but instead take issue with his father's foreign citizenship.
"While other top radio hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin and Lou Dobbs, have all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama eligibility issue is legitimate and worthy, a few — including Beck and fellow Fox TV host Bill O'Reilly — have taken the position that the issue is, in O'Reilly's words, 'bogus.' Both Beck and O'Reilly cite the contemporaneous appearance of birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers as prima facie evidence Obama was born in Hawaii and 'birthers' are conspiracy nuts.
"However, what neither talk host realizes is that newspaper birth announcements are not placed by parents phoning their local paper with the good news that they had a child. Rather, as WND has reported based on interviews with the two Hawaii papers involved, the Obama newspaper birth announcements stemmed from information automatically sent to the papers by Hawaii's Department of Health upon the state's issuance of a 'Certification of Live Birth,' which, as WND has also reported, is considered insufficient on its own to positively document the president's birthplace.
"Many people remain unaware that a child does not even have to be born in Hawaii to receive a 'Certification of Live Birth — that's the 'short form' that provides no hospital name, delivering physician or any of the other information that traditionally appears on a legitimate birth certificate. And yet the 'short form' COLB is the one and only piece of evidence the White House has cited in defending its assertion Obama was born in Hawaii.
"Hawaiian law specifically allows 'an adult or the legal parents of a minor child' to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.
"The only requirement for proof cited in the law doesn't address the birth of the child either, just 'that the legal parents of such individual while living without Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.'
"Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
"And since Obama's long-form birth certificate remains locked away from public view and sealed by privacy laws, no brainwashing device — such as Beck alluded to in his program — would be necessary to keep Hillary Clinton from discovering the contents of Obama's original birth certificate."
The logical conclusion is that there is SOMETHING in the document that Obama does not want to share with the American people.
Even the Beckster should realize that!
Zahn pointed out that concealment is the Obama way.
Zahn:
"Obama's birth papers... aren't the only piece of the sitting president's past that Obama has refused to reveal.
"As WND has reported, other documentation not yet available includes Obama's kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records."
Who really thinks there's nothing there that might reasonably influence voters if known?
Beck, who last year publicly stated that Obama is racist, now wants to challenge Obama only on his policies and actions.
Beck: "Why don't we go after the things that are provable, after the things that actually you need to stop right now? And if you want to argue, then let's argue based in fact, based on things that are provable and true. And what do you say? Do you want to argue the Constitution? Good. Let's show the number of people in Congress and in the Senate that don't even read the Constitution — can't tell you right now if healthcare is even in the Constitution. Let's talk to the scholars. Let's talk to the average Joe that understands this isn't in the Constitution. Let's argue the Constitution on the laws and the systems that they are building today. Instead of arguing the Constitution and whether or not he was born in America, why don't we argue the constitutionality of a little known thing called czars and the power that these people have?"
Message to Beck:
First, most Obama/ACORN critics can multitask!
Second, we need to expose the truth about the Obama/ACORN relationship that helps explain why Obama appointed all those "czars."
Third, Marcel Reid is an ardent Obama supporter with personal and radical political agendas and not a "Rosa Parks.
"Radio Patriot" Andrea Shea King surely is disappointed with the Beckster ridiculing "birthers."
"Radio Patriot," in "The Lamestream Media Is Chewing Towels" (December 4, 2009) ( http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2009/ ... ng-towels/ ):
"What toute la monde is chewing dishtowels about this morning ranges from 'Sarah's a birther!' to 'It's a reasonable question'. But it's one that the mainstream media won't — can't — touch with a ten foot pole.
"As my show producer Dave said, they're in quandary — "They can't take this opportunity to smash Palin once again for fear of reporting on the birth certificate story. They've got the club in their hand but they can't use it."
"Pinch is half insane this morning. If Palin had come out and said 'I believe in flying saucers', they'd report that in a hot second, but they can't touch this — you know they're banging their heads on the edge of their desks. They can't write this story — cannot take this opportunity to smash Palin. This birth certificate/eligibility issue is a no-fly zone.
"And they like to paint her as stupid? I'm laughing out loud. Dumb like a fox. She's placed this issue squarely on the front page of controversy. Where it needs to be."
"Radio Patriot" related:
"Anyone who has read my blogs or tuned in to my radio program knows I've been asking 'who the heck is Barack Hussein Obama' ever since he first appeared on the national radar screen. And here's why:
"What we DO know about BHO:
* His childhood mentor was Frank Davis Marshall, who spied on U.S. military installations in Hawaii for the Soviet Union; edited a communist newspaper; authored pornographic novels; and wrote poetry in praise of Joseph Stalin.
* BHO was mentored by and is still supported by radical Muslims.
* BHO promised t[r]ansparency in government, but has spent over a million dollars in legal fees hiding information that would determine his Constitutional eligibility to be President.
* He is a former drug user.
* BHO's academic records are sealed from kindergarten through law school.
* He was deserted in childhood by his supposed biological father.
* He has produced no legitimate birth certificate which would indicate his place of birth, the attending physician, and any other pertinent information found on your or my birth certificate.
* He is a president who refused to intercept or inspect a North Korean ship virtually certain to be carrying weapons of mass destruction to Burma.
* A president who wants to cancel all missile defense while rogue nations are developing long-range ballistic missiles. An American president who blames the violence in Mexico on America.
* A Commander in Chief who claims to have been unaware that Air Force One was taken on a terrifying, low-level 'photo-op' over Manhattan. And do we really know who was on-board that aircraft during the flyover joyride?
* A president who berates American CEOs for flying in private planes at private expense on company business, but whose wife spends hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars flying to Paris for a shopping spree.
* A president who promised a transparent administration but requires all questions be screened before impromptu appearances.
* A man who freely admits his energy policies are designed to bankrupt the American coal industry.
* A president who has presided over the loss of 14.7 + million jobs and whose energy policy will cause the loss of another million jobs.
* A president whose energy policy will increase the average American utility bills by over $2,000 a year, in the middle of the Great Recession.
* A man about whom liberal journalist Tom Brokaw said, 'There's a lot about him we don't know'... just one week before the election.
"But someone knows who he is.
* Someone paid for his travel expenses to Pakistan and Indonesia.
* Someone engineered legal challenges to all of his election opponents for the State Senate and had them disqualified.
* Someone straightened and leveled his path to the U.S. Senate when a Democrat Judge made public the child custody records of his Republican opponent.
* When he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, someone arranged for him to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
* Someone saw to it that all of his records were sealed, at home and abroad Someone assembled the massive organization for his run for Presidency
* "Someone knows all about him. And it for sure isn't us.
"But we're disparaged as 'Birthers' by hypocrites who 'won't go there', yet still ask why it is we know so little about Obama; Conspiracy Freaks by those who are simply ignorant of the facts; and 'Trolls"' by self-appointed 'betters' simply for asking.
A few months ago there was a story written in the Canadian Free Press reguarding Barack Obama and Joe Bidens Nomination. The author provided a Copy of the original Certification of Nomination for the two, signed by Nancy Pelosi and Notorized Aug. 28th 2008. With it he provided a Certification of Nomination from South Carolina, signed again by Nancy Pelosi, Notorized and Recieved Aug.29th 2008. The problem is, it was missing a very importand sentence :
"and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution"...
I was amazed and curious to see if South Dakotas' DNC Nomination was missing this valuable paragraph. So I recieved a copy and it was dated "Recieved Aug.29th,2008", and sure enough NO MENTION of Constitutional Eligibility!
On November 20th 2009 I Faxed copies of the mentioned documents to my State Attorney General asking this SIMPLE question:
WHY did Nancy Pelosi sign and NOTORIZE two Nomination Certifications?
I called the AG office on two seperate occasions checking on my fax, and on Dec.17th 2009 I recieved an email from the AG office requesting I mail the Documents and my concern to The AG Office in Pierre.
On the 19th I did... And on Jan. 12th 2010 I recieved a letter from the Asst. Attorney General stating the following :
Barack Obama and the three Electors were properly vetted to be placed on the Ballot in South Dakota.
This office does hereby consider this matter closed.
I'm sorry... Was my question ever answered?
You got an answer alright, just a wrong answer for the wrong question.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotofPast
You might go back and ask exactly what vetting was done and by whom, because you want a copy of the vetting certification.
Obama birthplace lawyer denied new trial
January 13th, 2010, 11:55 am
by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz’s effort to have President Barack Obama removed from office because he was born in Kenya - or perhaps Indonesia - has run into another dead end, as U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued this order denying her request to move the case from Santa Ana to Washington, D.C.
In his order, Carter states simply that he dismissed her case on Oct. 29 - meaning that there is no action currently pending, and so no case to transfer. In that dismissal, Carter ruled that the federal courts do not have the constitutional power to remove a sitting president - that only Congress has that authority.
Taitz responded to the Oct. 29 ruling with a number of unorthodox filings. On Nov. 9, she filed a fiery declaration to Carter, which among other things claimed that a Carter law clerk previously worked for a law firm defending Obama, and that that clerk wrote most of Carter’s ruling dismissing Taitz’s suit. She also denied witnesses’ affidavits saying she’d asked them to lie to the court.
The same day as she filed the declaration lashing out at Carter and others, she’d filed a motion asking Carter to reconsider his dismissal of her case.
On Dec. 3, she filed new allegations with Carter’s court.
“There was a concerted and a well orchestrated effort by a number of individuals to assassinate my character, endanger my law license and ultimately derail my case against Mr. Obama,â€
That is bad. We are living in evil days, and today is an evil day among evil days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Wisckol
The perpetrators will be held responsible for these crimes they are committing before our eyes, even though now we don't know how. Justice is not dead, just delayed.
I replied to the discussion at
http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/20 ... ial/28143/
"No person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of President;" - U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1.
When a fraudulent government headed by an unlawful usurper deprives law-abiding citizens of all legal recourse when denied due process and their God-given rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Inpendence is clear:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson, William Henry Drayton, George Mason, James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, R.H. Lee, et al
Would any of you Obots care to - dare to - count how many of these Intolerable Acts have been repeated by your Dear Leader?
Jon Christian Ryter reminds us today
If the people can keep the crooks from stuffing the ballot boxes Brown [Senate candidate in Massachusetts] will win. But, when Obama stole 35,626,580 and the information was sitting on the White House website and the FEC website for the whole world to see... and nobody saw nuttin' you have to wonder if anyone cares that ACORN is minding the store.
Obama, in an attempt (I guess) to convince the masses that he's the legitimate president, attempted to prove it by placing election statistics on the White House website sometime just before Nov. 28, 2009. He listed the number of registered voters, that 56.8% of the registered voters voted, and the fact that Obama won with 69,456,897 votes to McCains 58 million or so. The chart Obama used had one number missing--the number of people who actually voted. The blank box stood out like a sore thumb since if you knew how many registered voters there were, and that 56.8% of them voted, then you should know how many people actually voted. I had to go to the FEC site for that info. 96,992,000 people voted. When you total up the votes counted for Obama, McCain, and the third party candidates, you realize that even though on 96,992,000 people voted, there were 132,618,580 votes in the ballots boxes. You might want to read the article (URL below) and pass it around. Because if no one's watching the store when people are shopping for new Congressmen and Senators, stealing the election of 2010 will be even easier than the theft of the Election of 2008.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23495809/Jon- ... the-Future
For those of you who are interested, there is an online Constitutional course offered by Michael Badnarik. The following YouTube link will take you to the series of course elements divided into smaller 8-10 minute sessions.
http://tinyurl.com/ycrtopw
Dr. Fukino attests to "the original vital records... verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Chiyome Fukino
Obviously, she is not qualified to judge Mr. Obama to be a natural born citizen.
One more time... what invalidates her "Obama was born in Hawaii" statement?
The possibility of Mr. Obama being the antichrist/pseudo-messiah (cont.).
Daniel's vision included animals as figures of world empires, a horn being a king or a kingdom:[/list:u:39x6mj4k][/list:u:39x6mj4k]
- a ram with two horns = Media and Persia;
a goat with a notable horn = Macedonia and Greece with Alexander;
the four notable horns succeeding the first =[list:39x6mj4k]Ptolemy I Soter (Egypt, Libya, and south Asia Minor),
Cassander (Greece and Macedonia),
Lysimachus (Thrace and north and west Asia Minor), and
Seleucus I Nicator (central Asia Minor, Syria, and east to the Indus River):[list:39x6mj4k]the little horn which grew out of Nicator = Antiochus Epiphanes IV, the type of the future antichrist.
The significance of the bold text in the scripture quoted below is this:
"the little horn" arose from one of the four horns and grew south and east toward the land of Israel.
That indicates that the antichrist will probably come from Syria, Turkey, or from that direction (England?).
However, Israel is north and east of Kenya, which makes Mr. Obama an unlikely pick (but not impossible).
[quote="Around 500BC, the prophet Daniel"][size=117]Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great.
And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Then he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him; and there was no one that could deliver the ram from his hand.
Therefore the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered. . .
Then it happened, when I, Daniel, had seen the vision and was seeking the meaning, that suddenly there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, who called, and said, “Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.â€
I emailed that link to my non representing representatives. Maybe they will take the courseQuote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
That's really funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
Michael J. Badnarik (born August 1, 1954) is an American software engineer, political figure, and former radio talk show host. He was the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2004 elections, and placed fourth in the race, behind independent candidate Ralph Nader. Two years later he ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in the 2006 congressional elections for Texas's 10th congressional district seat near Austin. In a three candidate field, Badnarik came in third receiving 7,603 votes for 4.3% of the vote.
So where are the Obama executive order challenges by Congress? Also, because of the intent to show separation of powers, doesn't this demonstrate that congress has standing to challenge the NBC eligibility question?
=======================
106th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2655
To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 30, 1999
Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. METCALF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Separation of Powers Restoration Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) As a limit on governmental power, Constitutional framers vested Federal powers in three coequal branches of government, each with unique and limited powers and each with a coequal duty to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States.
(2) A Supreme Court justice stated, `The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.' Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
(3) James Madison, quoting Montesquieu, stated in Federalist 47, `There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.'
(4) Article I of the Constitution provides, `All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'
(5) A congressional committee print has noted that, `because the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute, the President's proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority.' 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Comm. Print 1957).
(6) The Supreme Court has stated that, even if Presidents have, without congressional authority, taken actions only the Congress may take, `Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution `in the Government of the United States, or any Department of Officer thereof.' (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)).
(7) Treaties or Executive Agreements which purport to assign powers not amongst those specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are non-binding and cannot constitute law.
SEC. 3. SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORING RESCISSIONS.
(a) REPEAL OF WAR POWERS RESOLUTION- The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) is repealed.
(b) TERMINATION OF STATES OF EMERGENCY-
(1) IN GENERAL- All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5) as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act are terminated 90 days after such date. Such termination shall not affect--
(A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
(B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or
(C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.
(2) DEFINITION- For the purpose of this subsection, the term `national emergency' means a general declaration of emergency made by the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch.
(d) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO DECLARE EMERGENCY- To the extent that any Act of Congress in effect on the date of enactment of this Act grants to the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch the power to declare a national emergency, such power is hereby divested to the Congress alone.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.
(a) STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY- The President shall include with each Presidential order a statement of the specific statutory or constitutional provision which in fact grants the President the authority claimed for such action.
(b) INVALIDITY OF NONCONFORMING ORDERS- A Presidential order which does not include the statement required by subsection (a) is invalid, to the extent such Presidential order is issued under authority granted by a congressional enactment.
SEC. 5. EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.
(a) LIMITED EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS- A Presidential order neither constitutes nor has the force of law and is limited in its application and effect to the executive branch.
(b) EXCEPTIONS- Subsection (a) does not apply to--
(1) a reprieve or pardon for an offense against the United States, except in cases of impeachment;
(2) an order given to military personnel pursuant to duties specifically related to actions taken as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; or
(3) a Presidential order citing the specific congressional enactment relied upon for the authority exercised in such order and--
(A) issued pursuant to such authority;
(B) commensurate with the limit imposed by the plain language of such authority; and
(C) not issued pursuant to a ratified or unratified treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement which--
(i) violates the ninth or tenth amendments to the Constitution; or
(ii) makes a delegation of power to a foreign government or international body when no such delegating authority exists under the Constitution.
SEC. 6. STANDING TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS WHICH IMPACT SEPARATION OF POWERS INTEGRITY.
The following persons may bring an action in an appropriate United States court to challenge the validity of any Presidential order which exceeds the power granted to the President by the relevant authorizing statute or the Constitution:
(1) CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERS- The House of Representatives, the Senate, any Senator, and any Representative to the House of Representatives, if the challenged Presidential order--
(A) infringes on any power of Congress;
(B) exceeds any power granted by a congressional enactment; or
(C) violates section 4 because it does not state the statutory authority which in fact grants the President the power claimed for the action taken in such Presidential order.
(2) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS- The highest governmental official of any State, commonwealth, district, territory, or possession of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, or the designee of such person, if the challenged Presidential order infringes on the powers afforded to the States under the Constitution.
(3) AGGRIEVED PERSONS- Any person aggrieved in a liberty or property interest adversely affected directly by the challenged Presidential order.
SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER.
In this Act, the term `Presidential order' means--
(1) any Executive order, Presidential proclamation, or Presidential directive; and
(2) any other Presidential or Executive action by whatever name described purporting to have normative effect outside the executive branch which is issued under the authority of the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch.
I am not certain about the NBC issue, but somehow I do not see our current congressional leadership letting this get any further than the trash bin. If they had tried to pass it when Bush was in office, well then it would have passed with flying colors.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
I especially like this section:Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
(a) STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY- The President shall include with each Presidential order a statement of the specific statutory or constitutional provision which in fact grants the President the authority claimed for such action.
Do you suppose the usurper in charge has done this?
BTW, this Heritage Foundation article (a long one) discusses executive orders through Clinton's reign. I've asked the author (via e-mail) if he has an update coming out.
THE USE AND ABUSE OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS
AND OTHER PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES
Author: TODD F. GAZIANO
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalI ... d/lm_2.pdf
Todd F. Gaziano is Senior Fellow in Legal Studies and Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Give me advance warning if you decide to post the update here.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
I'm not sure my broadband connection can handle it.
Wilco. I'll probably get permission to load it up on Scribd.com, or, alternatively, simply provide a link at Heritage. The current article is a good one - it's just shy of the important period we are in right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
This may not be part of the change Obama had in mind.
========================
Bill stems from Obama 'birther' controversy
Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/149423
January 12, 2010 - 3:51PM
If Barack Obama wants to run for re-election he would need to produce proof of both his U.S. birth and citizenship to get on the ballot in Arizona, at least under a measure being pushed by a state legislator.
Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, is crafting a measure to require anyone running for president or vice president to provide proof to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office that they are legally eligible to seek the office. The U.S. Constitution requires the president - and, by extension, the vice president - to be "a natural born citizen."
More to the point, Burges would require the secretary of state to verify, independently, that the information is accurate.
"And if it's not certifiable, then that person's name would not go on the ballot," she said.
Burges told Capitol Media Services the measure is not necessarily about Obama, though she admitted she has her doubts that he was born in Hawaii as he claims and, even if so, that he can show he is a U.S. citizen.
"With what's happening throughout the world, we need to make sure that our candidates are certifiable," she said.
Burges did not support Obama and is not a fan. And she said if, in fact, he is not a "natural born" citizen, that makes him suspect.
"When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that," she said.
The kind of certification Burges wants, though, could be more difficult than simply checking for a valid birth certificate, as the arguments about his legal qualification go beyond whether he was actually born in Hawaii.
A lawsuit filed in federal court in Pennsylvania charged, among other theories, that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian man and moved there, and that he failed to reclaim it as an adult. But Judge Barclay Surrick threw out the case without ruling on the legal theory, saying the plaintiff did not have standing to sue.
The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected the case.
Burges' bill, if it becomes law, would put the secretary of state in the position of having to determine whether the individual circumstances of a candidate's life disqualify him or her from being on the Arizona ballot.
The two-term lawmaker said her concerns remain about having a president whose citizenship - and, by her reckoning, loyalty - is not clear.
"We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America," Burges said.
"This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited. And the only way I can do that is what I can do as a state legislator."
Burges said her suspicions about Obama go beyond that well-publicized bow in Saudi Arabia.
"Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side," Burges continued. "Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?"
The quote comes from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," in which he writes about conversations with immigrant communities following the 2001 terrorist attacks, especially Arab and Pakistani Americans. Obama said they were fearful over detentions and FBI questioning and were concerned about the historical precedent.
"They need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction," Obama wrote.
=====================
(edit by Juan)
BTW, under the comments section, Judy Burges left this comment:
jburges wrote:
"In a recent article in the Michigan Law Review, "The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?," Associate Professor Daniel P. Tokaji of Ohio State University reviewed the thorny legal impediments to federal lawsuits challenging the qualifications of a Presidential candidate.
"Prof. Tokaji concluded that state courts were the appropriate forum for such suits and that " it is up to states — and, in particular, to state legislatures — to define the rights and remedies available in cases where a presidential candidate is alleged to be ineligible.""
Interesting, don't you think? Kinda goes back to states rights and power over the feds. I like it.
This is a long one, written by Zachery Jones (suspect he is an American attorney, but could not trace), expressing his story of Obama and the chain of recent events with regard to eligibility and other smelly crimes. Lots of links, many we have seen already, but there are a few new ones.
===========================
Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?
Australia.to – News from Australia’s National Website
Tuesday, 12 January 2010 22:21
Written by Zach Jones
http://tinyurl.com/yhpsu9x
Did Hope for Rising GOP Stars like Bobby Jindal Play a Role in the Obama’s Presidential Eligibility Scandal?
When questions about Obama’s eligibility to serve as President arose ( http://obamacrimes.com/ ), I immediately recognized that this could be the biggest political scandal in U.S. history, bigger even than Watergate. The allegations, if true, would have created widespread political turmoil and would have had to involve people, high up people, ignoring and/or covering up facts. How could a young Senator from Illinois have gotten so far, so quickly, in national politics without some in both the Democratic & Republican Parties taking notice, researching, discovering details ( http://tinyurl.com/yj2mam2 ) of his past and recognizing that there was a BIG potential problem ( http://tinyurl.com/qv87zt )? Especially, given that every other person in Washington is a lawyer, people knew, the media had to have known, ( http://tinyurl.com/ygksng6 ) known both of the problem and its ramifications. After all, it’s the political big league in Washington.
Having a legal background, I decided to do my own research to satisfy my curiosity and it became abundantly clear that legitimate questions existed and continue to exist. Questions regarding interpretation of Article II, Section I ( http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii ) of the Constitution, questions of original intent, British/Kenyan law ( http://tinyurl.com/yaw7cjt ), acquisition of citizenship, questions about Obama’s birthplace ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78931 ), his adoption, his educational scholarships, his parent’s foreign allegiance/citizenship ( http://tinyurl.com/nl7n2r ), his prior inadvertent admissions ( http://tinyurl.com/yac3uca ), questions about his passport(s) ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=100613 ), etc. ( http://tinyurl.com/yfh9qbl ), exist with sufficient basis in law and/or fact to warrant serious investigation and judicial review. So, like many others at the time, I sat back and waited for the media firestorm to begin. And I waited, and waited, and waited. Not a peep from the media, Hillary, McCain or Republicans. Why?
With an issue this big involving the first competitive African-American running for the Presidency of the United States, his intentional withholding of records ( http://tinyurl.com/mvtmpy ), and the possibility that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements for the Office, I just knew that every stone would be quickly overturned to get to the bottom of it. Even though it’s common knowledge that the American media is pretty much left of center ( http://tinyurl.com/2ps9pm ) when it comes to politics and everything else - ‘the story’, this story was SO big that I was sure they would not be able to ignore it. It wasn’t like other political stories the media ignored such as John Edwards’ love child ( http://tinyurl.com/y8qjrja ) or Larry Sinclair’s allegations ( http://larrysinclair.com/ ) of drug use and sex with Obama. This story went to bedrock, the requirements of who can be President and who can serve as Commander In Chief ( http://tinyurl.com/y8qzmw3 ) of our military. To my surprise, next to nothing came from the mainstream media.
Many expected Republicans to wait as long as they possibly could before raising the issue because of the political/media ramifications. It seemed certain that they were praying for the media to take the lead so they could stay on the high road. After enduring eight years of constant Bush bashing and constant negative media spin about Republicans, it’s easy to appreciate their concerns ( http://tinyurl.com/2ps9pm ). It’s a shame that Republican fear may have trumped their doing the right thing early on. Had they manned up, we probably would not be in the current situation of having our rights and freedoms in jeopardy.
Republicans had seen the media for a decade artfully portray them as corrupt, uncaring politicians on a reckless spending spree. This portrayal led directly to the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. Even though, a Republican spending spree pales when compared to an Obama/Reid/Pelosi spending spree. Even though, Republican ‘caring’ has historically meant a limited federal government helping those in need with a hand up in ways that would not bankrupt the nation (sustainability) and Democrat ‘caring’ has historically meant a growing government trying to bait those with needs, real or otherwise, into becoming permanently dependent. What Republicans could count on in 2008 was that the mainstream media would likely report everything Republicans dared say about this critical Constitutional issue as racism, expressed and/or implied.
They were scared of the media in 2008. They were in the political wilderness. However, I believe fear was not the only factor keeping Republicans from speaking from conviction. Republicans might have been reluctant to rock Obama’s boat because their own leadership (those who would have fully understood Obama’s agenda, his past associations and ideology) may have been considering the possibility that losing to Obama might not be so bad.
Maybe they realized that if Obama were elected, Americans would likely be so disappointed and shocked by his policies that Republicans might quickly sweep back in power. Instead of being beaten up for eternity by the media for spoiling the first African American’s opportunity to reach the Presidency, they could be seen as adults setting things right after a rebellious kid’s screw ups. Yes, I think political calculations could well have been trumping principles. After all, the Party did have a few bright stars in waiting such as Gov. Bobby Jindal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal ). They could just bide their time, hope America wakes up as Obama revealed himself and be ready to step up.
Jindal, he’s the young Republican Governor who had a 77% approval rating in 2008. Jindal had taken over the reigns of Louisiana shortly after the embarrassing former Democratic Governor’s performance dealing with Katrina. Louisiana is also the home of some fairly egregious examples of Democratic corruption such as Rep. Jefferson’s conviction ( http://tinyurl.com/lucfvx ) and Senator Landrieu appearing to sell her vote for $300,000,000 dollars to Harry Reid ( http://tinyurl.com/ycfm6ou ) . Gov. Bobby Jindal is definitely a rising star in the Republican Party, a fiscal conservative, principled and someone not closely associated with President Bush. He is seen as a leader with a great future. I can certainly see him in the U.S. Senate.
As time passed, more and more lawsuits were filed (over 50) challenging Obama’s eligibility and nothing - nothing from the media, nothing from Hillary Clinton, nothing Republicans in Washington, nothing from John McCain. The issue was a hot potato that carried a truckload of political risk. Democrats, who were acutely aware that they risked losing the carefully groomed dependence of many minority voters, wouldn’t touch it. Politicians of both parties were afraid of the charge of racism - and for good reason. All they had to do was watch the vicious attacks against eligibility attorneys Philip Berg, Dr. Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Stephen Pidgeon, and Mario Apuzzo.
Given that many politicians lack backbone, those of us concerned about the issue had little choice but to put faith with the American judicial system and hope that they would answer conclusively the questions of Obama’s eligibility. Well, so much for faith. Notwithstanding their oaths to protect the Constitution, judges apparently wanted nothing to do with this political hot potato either. Courts have been falling all over themselves from the beginning to do every legal contortion necessary to avoid granting discovery, examining facts and/or applying the law regarding this eligibility issue.
However, we are not defeated. Legal challenges ( http://tinyurl.com/yahexoq ) and opportunities for challenges ( http://tinyurl.com/dnfhak ) remain and it will only take one principled judge to resolve the eligibility issue. Is Obama a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ eligible to serve as President of the United States and Commander In Chief of its military? But, we all must remember that most judges begin their careers on the bench as politicians; and so far, politics trump a magistrate’s sworn duty.
Had the winner of the 2008 Presidential election been Governor Jindal, you can be sure there would have been endless lines of Constitutional experts brought in by FOX, CNN, MS-NBC, CBS, ABC to explain the history of the eligibility provision, the underlying issues and facts relevant to a reasoned determination. You see, Bobby Jindal was born in Louisiana in 1971 and his parents are Indian immigrants who came here to attend graduate school, nearly the exact factual situation as Obama’s (accepting a Hawaii birth). And had 50+ lawsuits been filed against a Presidential candidate Jindal, the media would have been in a frenzy trying to outdo each other, it would have been like the O.J. trial. I also believe that both the federal & state courts would have been decidedly more eager to get to the merits so that they could be seen as protecting the Constitution, the Presidency and apple pie.
But it wasn’t candidate Jindal - it was candidate Obama. So, instead of having extensive coverage and thoroughly investigating the issue, the media has given next to no coverage. And when the mainstream media decides to cover the issue, they do it so they can spin the story to wrongly equate the meaning of ‘citizen’ and a ‘natural born ‘citizen’ - and to paint those raising the issue as idiots. Where are the real journalists? With the exception of FOX, this is clearly the media’s ‘thrill up the leg’ political bias trumping journalistic principle.
With FOX, I think of them the same way as I think of Republicans. Because FOX is constantly vilified by Democrats and the left lending media, this potato was so hot that even they could not risk being wrong or having a court come to a different conclusion. FOX’s fear trumped their journalistic principle.
I wonder if the Republican leadership figured that if they didn’t complain about Obama in 2008, they would be able to count on Democrats and the Obama media not complaining about Jindal’s eligibility issues should he decide to run in 2012? My first thought was that having such an expectation would be a fool’s dream. However, I’m not so sure now. They all now have a lot of political capital invested in attempting to effectively rewrite the eligibility provision of the Constitution by some sort of contorted waiver/estoppel/abandonment theory. It’s all underhanded and improper; but as long as courts continue to abdicate their own responsibilities, who can know what determined politicians might accomplish?
The whole mess smells more and more like ‘the players’ in Washington have gotten together and decided, or implicitly understand, that the issue and the Constitution are to be ignored. Every player appears to be serving their own self-interest, burying their principles, avoiding risk, and using the mainstream media’s avoidance of the issue as political cover. If the mainstream media ever takes the lead and does their job, the other players will be forced to do theirs as well.
Even when, reports were coming out in Canada ( http://tinyurl.com/nydgh7 ) that a radio talk show host ( http://tinyurl.com/nsoqrt ) had revealed that he ( http://tinyurl.com/y9sk3vz ), his career ( http://tinyurl.com/yenn6bw ), [and his] family had been threatened; the mainstream American media simply ignored the story. No real investigation, nothing, nada was started. This smells really bad.
Regarding the Democratic leadership, anyone watching the recent antics of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid concerning the healthcare takeover (with their buying of votes, conducting the people’s business in secret, not allowing debate or time to actually read the bills, misrepresentations, manipulation of the numbers, and their constant ridicule those in opposition) must realize that it’s not the means that count to these people – only the ends. Therefore, I have no doubt that they would turn a blind eye to the possibility that the Constitution might have been violated by Obama and those who have attested to his eligibility. Oh, that was Nancy Pelosi who did that ( http://tinyurl.com/qv87zt ).
Regarding Hillary Clinton, she’s an old school hardball politician who is probably worrying more about her status and legacy now; rather than actually doing the right thing and demanding that Obama provide documentation proving that he is a natural born citizen. I guess it’s not a fight she’s willing to take on given that she is also the wife of the ‘first black President’ ( http://tinyurl.com/ybzocxc ).
Regarding the mainstream media, all you need to do is check who has been a consistent donor to Obama & Democratic politicians through the years. Then check for yourself what they are reporting, what they are leaving out, how stories are slanted, how far are they slanted and the frequency of displays of bias. There was a study out of, I believe, UCLA around 2004 that found that 18 of 20 major media outlets ( http://tinyurl.com/2ps9pm ) were left of center and that Brit Hume and the Drudge Report did indeed provide the fair and balanced news coverage. Today, the media appears to have dropped all pretense of being objective.
Regarding John McCain, he is also a seasoned politician who probably values his own legacy more than tackling such a big political nightmare. Especially, given that some have questioned his own ‘natural born citizen’ status ( http://tinyurl.com/ygpqzqa ), he might prefer someone else take the lead.
A few Republican politicians ( http://tinyurl.com/ykyemwk ) have displayed courage by trying to introduce legislation that would require that candidates must provide proof that they are in fact eligible for the offices they seeking. Of course, Nancy Pelosi is keeping this buried and it will not see the light of day while she is the Speaker of the House. This type of legislation is extremely important should Republicans gain power in 2010. It cannot be allowed to stand that politicians can willy-nilly change the effect of the Constitution without going through the proper process. Talk about elitism!
Representative Nathan Deal ( http://tinyurl.com/yfnj4mq ) has made the boldest direct display of courage to date by sending Obama a letter asking that he provide proof that he is a natural born citizen. Congressman Deal was of course immediately, repeatedly and viciously attacked for doing this one small act to protect the integrity of the Constitution. However, Rep. Deal’s act is very important because it provides a proof that a Member of Congress had specific concerns over Obama’s eligibility to serve. It is the first time that a sitting President has been confronted in this way. Well done! History must not be scrubbed to hide Obama’s probable criminal deception to obtain the Office of the Presidency.
Republicans took the easiest path in 2008 because they were fearful and had been relegated to the wilderness in 2006. With the emergence of the grassroots Tea Party revolt, Republicans are now poised to make substantial gains in 2010. I believe people are looking for genuine, principled, limited government, fiscal conservative leadership. Unfortunately, current Republicans will have to do this year because they are the best choice for the nation until better candidates ( http://tinyurl.com/q4hs48 ) emerge. However, all candidates should take heed that millions of Americans recognize that they must pay attention to what Congress is doing.
And just a friendly reminder, those of us who are concerned about the eligibility issue will also be paying attention. Please don’t consider running Gov. Jindal for the Presidency in 2012. As much as we (I) may like him, he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and we (I) will not put our politics above principles founded in the Constitution!
Putting the country, the Constitution, & the rule of law ahead of politicians’ self-interest were called for in 2008 - and the call was ignored. Democrats and Republicans alike failed to answer.
After rereading this piece, I am more discouraged and fearful that the courts may well let down America, her Constitution and her people by failing to take the bull by the horns and look at the issue of Obama’s eligibility. (The court system was the only institution that I had a great deal of faith in but it looks like faith has been misplaced.)
It may ultimately fall to the military (who deserve to have a Commander In Chief who is in fact eligible to serve in that honored position and is legally capable of issuing ‘lawful orders’) to utilize the Uniform Code of Military Justice and demand that Obama establish the facts.
May I suggest Section 935. Art. 135. COURTS OF INQUIRY ( http://tinyurl.com/ycqb98b ) and possibly
Section 883. Art. 83. FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION ( http://tinyurl.com/yd2tpcs )
Any person who--
(1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for the enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder…
Stephen Pidgeon is upset with Glenn Beck and wrote the following letter to Beck. Sorry if this is a repeat.
The complete article with links is found here:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/ ... -comments/
===========================
Dear Mr. Beck:
You are ill-informed on the “birtherâ€
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zachery Jones
Sorry, Atty. Orly Taitz already tried that tactic, without success.
On behalf of her 100+ military clients, Dr. Taitz went to Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the possibility of an individual submitting an Article 135 through channels to validate the legitimacy of his or her military chain of command. Adm. Mullen's legal staff investigated the procedure and determined that an Art. 135 cannot verify the legitimacy of the Commander-in-Chief, because he is a civilian not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
However, this does not discount the fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are the appropriate persons to end the usurpation and deliver the nation from the present and ongoing coup d'état. In the case of a banana republic coup, the military usually must step in to restore a legitimate government. The JCS has charge of the military, which is the only institution which cannot be intimidated by the Chicago Machine, the DNC thugs, the murderers of Quarles Harris, Donald Young, Vince Foster, et al, the globalist elites of finance and commerce, the UN blue helmets, and least of all, Is|am.
[WVPatriot posted the following at Hannity forums. However, I maintain that U.S.-born children of those who died before the revolution were dual citizens after it.]
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.ph ... &page=2164
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Ramsay
"That excludes any possibility that one parent of said children could be an alien who owes allegiance to a foreign sovereignty."
[quote="Rep. John A. Bingham"][size=117]"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . .â€
BORN IN THE USA?
3 dozen lawmakers want proof of Obama eligibility
Proposal would demand state officials independently verify information
________________________________________
Posted: January 18, 2010
10:01 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122432
Lawmakers in Arizona have proposed a law that would require state officials to begin independently verifying the accuracy of newly required documents affirming the constitutional eligibility of any candidate for the U.S. presidency.
"Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc.," state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen."
She is one of about three dozen lawmakers to sign on as co-sponsors.
The plan would accomplish essentially the same thin as that proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., on the federal level.
The provisions of Posey's H.R. 1503 are straightforward:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
The bill also provides:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
The sponsors' goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.
But whatever support it does have, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrat party faithful, as well as a president whose own political fortunes could be impacted by its requirements.
Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, earlier told the East Valley Tribune her plan is not targeted directly at Obama, although she does have concerns about his loyalties.
"When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that," she told the newspaper.
"We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America. This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited," she said.
"Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side," Burges said. "Doesn't that bother you just a little bit?"
Any state adopting – and enforcing – requirements similar to the federal plan would have an impact as great, since the information to meet those requirements presumably then would be public.
Democrats in the state already are arguing that the plan to demand all presidential candidates to submit proof they were born in the U.S. and sign an affidavit stating they are a U.S. citizen is not needed.
"He [Obama] clearly met the standards to run for president and hold office as president because the federal government installed him as president in January of last year," Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat, said. "The question has been asked and answered."
As WND has reported, however, no controlling legal authority every directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."
The proposal, H2442, also would require that the secretary of state in Arizona independently verify that the documents submitted are correct. Any failure could cause the candidate's name to be withheld from the ballot, officials said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in excess of $1.7 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 480,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
[quote="HighlanderJuan"]Stephen Pidgeon is upset with Glenn Beck and wrote the following letter to Beck. Sorry if this is a repeat.
The complete article with links is found here:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/ ... -comments/
===========================
Dear Mr. Beck:
You are ill-informed on the “birtherâ€
[size=117]Posted by Trip [at forums.hannity - the sixth post on the page at
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.ph ... &page=2146 ]
As KSDB has accurately pointed out (but I intend to further), the requirement for [the office of] President in Article II is not merely "citizen" and never has been.
The requirement for President in Article II is not "citizen" but rather "Natural Born Citizen." In Alexander Hamilton's first draft of Article II the requirement was indeed only "citizen", or more accurately citizen at birth ("born citizen"). However they did not go with Hamilton's early draft of Article II.
>From the Yale Law Journal [Vol. 97: 881]:
Especially given this draft change, it is clearly wrong to equate "natural born citizen" with anyone who is a citizen at birth, and it is improper to ignore the word "natural" in the phrase "natural born citizen" simply because one has no innate understanding of the meaning of "natural". "Natural" in "natural born citizen", is an application of Natural Law, which is opposed to Positive Law, with this phrase being a term of art outside legislative definition and having a set, established meaning.
- On June 18, a little over a month before Jay's letter, Alexander Hamilton submitted a "sketch of a plan of government which 'was meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose ... in ... future discussion.' "40 Article IX, section 1 of the sketch provided: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
Hamilton's draft, which appears to be an early version of the natural-born citizen clause, contains two distinct ideas: first, that those currently citizens will not be excluded from presidential eligibility, and second, that the President must be born a citizen.
What actually transpired over this change in wording was that the President was no longer to be elected by the Congress, but rather by the people, and therefore the office required more stringent safeties on the allegiance of the office holder. By selection by the duly qualified and elected Congress, a certain degree of security was established for the office of President. However the President was decided to be elected from among the people and therefore more stringent security of allegiance was applied to the qualifications for office of President itself.
As employed by our Founders, the term "natural" indicates a "self-evident" status requiring no legislative clarification nor definition. A natural born citizen, one born on that country's soil of parents who are citizens, has "self-evident" citizen status upon birth because they could not possibly have any other citizenship or allegiance.
Given that the requirements for the Office of President are inscribed on parchment since the founding of this country, it would be unreasonable to assume that the definition of "natural born citizen" was unknown or vague. This Yale Law Review article tries to argue for a liberal interpretation of Constitution open to the repeated flux of legislative naturalization. However, even this article concludes the following:[/list:u:18ch166f]Given the fact that these Yale Scholars reviewing other scholars' opinions reach the conclusion that "natural born citizen" should only be considered under the law in effect at the time of the framing, then the 14th Amendment could not reasonably [a]ffect "natural born citizen". Given the fact these same scholars recognize that NBC is a term the Framers used believing its "connotation was clear", then there could not have possibly been numerous interpretations at the time nor by the several states. These two conclusions together indicate that "scholars" believe that the one interpretation of "natural born citizen" by the founders from 200+ years ago remains intact and the only valid interpretation today.
- "Constitutional scholars have traditionally approached the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of the natural-born citizen clause by inquiring into the specific meaning of the term "natural born" at the time of the Constitutional Convention. They conclude that a class of citizens should be considered natural born today only if they would have been considered natural-born citizens under the law in effect at the time of the framing of the Constitution" (see footnote 8 ).
[list:18ch166f]8. These writers assume that the phrase "natural born citizen" was a term of art during the preconstitutional period since the phrase is not defined in either the Constitution or the records of the Constitutional Convention. See Gordon, supra note 2, at 2 ("The only explanation for the use of this term is the apparent belief of the Framers that its connotation was clear.")
Not surprisingly there are more than 100 years of Supreme Court opinion clearly indicating the definition of natural born citizen, and even indicating a reference consulted by our founders as they authored the Constitution in Carpenter's Hall, that reference being Emerick de Vattel's "Law of Nations".[list]â–º 1759 E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758) (1759 first English translation);
► 1814 The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens);
â–º 1830 Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel);
â–º 1875 Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
â–º 1879 Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);
â–º 1890 United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel);
â–º 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United Statesâ€
I received an answer back:Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Thanks for writing. At this time, Todd is not planning to update that article. Thanks again for checking out his research.
Cordially,
Elizabeth Garvey
It would seem from the article below there are many states tightening their eligibility rules for candidates as a result of the Obama eligibility questions (that's a good thing), and one way we can help, is to get involved in changing our own state's eligibility laws and support stronger, more restrictive candidate requirements within our own state.
=================
BORN IN THE USA?
Obama's eligibility becomes war among the states
Lawmakers jump into fray, seek answer to constitutional question
________________________________________
Posted: January 19, 2010, 8:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122542
The demand for documentation of Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is surging, with lawmakers in several states now working on legislation that could be used to require future presidential candidates to reveal precisely how they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen."
WND already has reported ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122432 ) on a bill co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers in Arizona who want to require candidates not only to submit the information, but state officials to independently verify the accuracy.
Bill sponsor Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she already has started getting questions from other states who want details about the proposal.
A separate proposal has been created by a freedom of information action group in New York State, and now the National Conference of State Legislatures, ( http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16588 ) which monitors and tabulates the work of legislative bodies, confirms through its database that several other plans are in the works.
Some of the proposals are very clear even without the full text. In New Hampshire, for example, a pending plan would require "certified copies of birth certificates for nominees for president and vice president."
Others are a little more oblique. In Georgia, for example, lawmakers propose a bill "relating to procedures for qualification of candidates generally, so as to require each candidate for public office to be in compliance with certain disclosure requirements."
There is no definitive word on what that would mean to presidential candidates.
An Indiana proposal is equally unclear, because it "authorizes a challenge to a candidate's eligibility to seek an office to be filed by a registered voter of the jurisdiction conducting the election." It could apply only to local elections.
In Virginia, a summary says the proposal "provides that candidates shall provide evidence of their qualifications for office to have their names printed on the ballot. The State Board of Elections shall provide a list of acceptable forms of evidence."
And in the New York state plan proposed by a freedom of information organization ( http://www.debrajmsmith.com/AFFOIsp5.html ) to state lawmakers would provide that "an individual seeking placement on the New York State's election ballot(s) for the office of president or vice president of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution."
The proposals essentially are moving the same direction as a federal measure proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla. ( http://posey.house.gov/ )
Posey's H.R. 1503 states:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
The bill also provides:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.
But whatever support Posey's plan has, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrats, as well as a president whose own status could be impacted by its requirements.
In Arizona, state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.
"It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen," she told the Arizona Capitol Times.
If states start adopting such election requirements, their laws possibly could have an impact similar to federal legislation, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.
The issue with Obama's eligibility is that although a computer-generated image of a "certification of live birth" was posted online by his campaign, the image does not actually document a birthplace.
Hawaiian law at the time, for example, allowed family members to register a birth in Hawaii by submitting information to the state.
A second significant factor is the multitude of documents that Obama has kept from the public.
Besides his actual birth documentation, the documentation includes ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100613 ) kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Thirdly, another significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases specifically preventing any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.
And as WND has reported, however, no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."
The Arizona proposal, H2442, also would require that the secretary of state in Arizona independently verify that the documents submitted are correct. Any failure could cause the candidate's name to be withheld from the ballot, officials said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Stunningly, the fringe media continues to completely ignore this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
[Political commentators predict that the 2010 elections will throw the bums out. They need to wake up to the reality of ACORN, registered phantom voters, the recounting of the Coleman-Franken race until the Senate supermajority was secured, registration of felons and illegal aliens, ACORN community organizing, massively discarded military absentee ballots, the registration in Nevada of the Dallas Cowboys football team, the White House power grab in commanding, controlling, performing, and counting the 2010 census, ACORN voter registration drives, lack of verification of voter rolls, thugs intimidating voters at voting places, black box voting machiines, and did I mention ACORN?
There has to be a reason that anti-America, anti-Christian, anti-Israel, and anti-law-and-order politicians in Washington are pushing and passing throughly unpopular socialist and communist legislation. with seemingly no fear of being recalled in November.]
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/ ... sal_v.html
January 06, 2010
What the Dems Know: Universal Voter Registration
By James Simpson
Many are puzzled that Democrats persist in ramming unpopular and destructive legislation down our collective throats with no apparent concern for their plummeting poll numbers. A widespread belief is that the Democrats are committing political suicide and will be swept from one or both houses of Congress with unprecedented electoral losses next November. But since Democrat politicians rarely do things that will not ultimately benefit themselves, this column asked two weeks ago, "What do they know that we don't?"
We may have found out. It's called universal voter registration. The Wall Street Journal's John Fund described the Democrat plan recently at a David Horowitz Freedom Center forum. Watch the video here.
Fund describes the proposal as follows:
In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: 'take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be ...'
Fund anticipates that Congress will attempt to ram this legislation through, as with the health care bill. What a surprise! Fund covers the vote issue at greater length in his book, How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections.
Leftist groups are already arguing that universal voter registration will solve all the problems with our voting system. But the left created most of these problems. The radical leftist Nation Magazine, for example, absolutely loves the idea of universal voter registration. This is the same magazine, however, that advanced Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven's Manufactured Crisis strategy. The Cloward/Piven strategy was designed to undermine government institutions by overwhelming them with impossible demands for services. Cloward and Piven focused on welfare, housing, and voting as the main targets of this strategy, and the radical group ACORN was specifically created for the purpose of executing it.
The Nation article enthusiastically lists Cloward/Piven-inspired organizations like Project Vote, the ACORN group where President Obama cut his teeth. It also discusses the left's efforts to push enforcement of the Motor Voter law and explains how universal voter registration could assist in these efforts. Cloward and Piven were the ones who crafted Motor Voter legislation in the early 1980s and pushed for its enactment until 1993, when President Clinton signed it into law.
Cloward and Piven considered Motor Voter to be their crowning, lifetime achievement. The picture at right, from White House photo archives, shows Cloward (light gray suit) and Piven (green coat and navy dress) standing directly behind Clinton at the Motor Voter signing ceremony.
The left has predictably launched vicious smear attacks against John Fund for bringing universal voter registration to our attention. A Google search of the issue brings up any number of nasty ad hominem attacks. Most notable is Media Matters, the leftist group whose sole purpose seems to be to smear Republicans and defend the left's indefensible policies. They put up this gem: "Right-Wing Ass Weasel John Fund Doesn't Like Universal Voter Registration because of ACORN."
The problems with universal voter registration are numerous and obvious. Many states' lists include vast numbers of illegals, including some states which allow illegals to obtain drivers licenses; because many homeowners have more than one home, there will be duplicates; because so many people are on so many separate federal and state government agency lists, there will be duplicates; and because so many lists exist with little or no cross-checking capability, all of these duplicates are likely to go uncorrected. Add to this the fact that Dems hope to extend voting rights to felons, and the whole thing begins to look like a nationwide Democrat voter registration drive facilitated by taxpayers.
Universal voter registration will create massive vulnerabilities to systemic voter fraud nationwide, and if Democrats have proven anything in recent years, it is that they can win elections that way. The George-Soros-funded Secretary of State project (SOS) was designed to take advantage of such vulnerabilities and may have been developed in anticipation of the universal voter registration plan. Al Franken's stolen election in Minnesota was a trial run for the SOS project. Longtime ACORN friend Mark Ritchie was elected Minnesota Secretary of State in 2006 with Soros's SOS and ACORN money, and what followed in Norm Coleman's Senate runoff election was a frightening demonstration of just how far Democrats will go to win. Franken won the runoff, and the Democrats got their filibuster-proof sixty-vote Senate majority.
The Motor Voter law was correctly identified as a facilitator of vote fraud. One of the few legal issues Barack Obama actually participated in as a lawyer was a 1995 suit against the State of Illinois, which he brought on behalf of ACORN. Then-Republican Governor Jim Edgars saw the newly passed Motor Voter act as creating the potential for massive vote fraud and refused to implement it. With the assistance of the Clinton Justice Department, Obama's legal team won that suit. Obama himself actually participated very little, a strategy that seems to have served him well in life. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, after identifying himself in court proceedings, Obama sat back and let "the heavy-hitters at the Justice Department make the arguments."
It is not surprising that the Democrats are now choosing to push this new initiative, for universal voter registration will be Motor Voter on turbochargers. And who better to sign it into law than the president from ACORN?
James Simpson authored the landmark article, "Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis."
I had heard this earlier, and like all freedom loving Americans, don't want anything like this to happen on our soil - it is fundamentally illegal on so many fronts it is hard to count them all. John Fund is to be thanked for helping make this a national topic of discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
I have also heard that universal voter registration fraud is the progressive's last best hope at total control of the American people, and that they are just not backing down - it's all or nothing - a desperate final thrust.
Whichever reason, on the positive side of things, the American people appear to be awake at last, and the Democrats implementing such an onerous federal law will 1) either cause a national rebellion, or 2) cause a total disregard of all federal jurisdiction.
I have met a major element of the progressive enemy, and he is in our universities; he poses as our teachers. Fortunately, American youth, as naive as they appear, are also quietly forming their own opinions of what is being taught, and the percentage of dedicated communist thinkers (aside from the professors) that I see in my classes approaches only one out of forty. Because of my age and my experience base, I am often quite able to disarm the leftist agenda with minimum effort.
But I don't get into every class, and I can't meet and positively influence every student - it's a big job.
Maybe it is time for more of us 'oldsters' to go back to college and help stem the tide of university progressive and communist teaching agenda going on within the classes. Time to demand new instructors with American lawful teaching attitudes. Throw out the commies.
However we get involved, in the university, in our town politics, in the neighborhood chats we have, or all of it. we have to become actively involved. This is our future and our children's future that is at stake and we can't abandon this cause.
The Massachusetts voter usurpation of the Democrat agenda in the Scott Brown election on Tuesday was wonderful proof that we outnumber the enemies of our state, and that when we are motivated, we can win any battle waged against us. We have the right mix of background, philosophy, and experience to overwhelm the stupid basterds (movie pun).
We will win this battle for our future, but it will take time, and it will take personal sacrifice and much of our time and effort. The enemy within will not back down. And so, like our Founding Fathers, neither can we back down.
This is a battle for our America way of life, and we must win it.
Do we know this already?
=================
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/ ... slComments
paularevere wrote:
The simple fact is Obama was born at Coast Provincial Hospital, Mombassa, Kenya.
Stanley Ann Dunham was enrolled Fall 1960 at Univ of Hawaii, gets pregnant, then not enrolled Spring 1961. Why?
From: Stuart Lau [mailto:stuartl@hawaii.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008
Subject: Re: Inquiry
The University of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Stanley Ann Dunham:
Dates of attendance:
Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960)
Spring 1963 - Summer 1966
Fall 1972 - Fall 1974
Summer 1976
Spring 1978
Fall 1984 - Summer 1992
Degrees awarded:
BA - Mathematics, Summer 1967 (August 6, 1967)
MA - Anthropology, Fall 1983 (December 18, 1983)
PhD - Anthropology, Summer 1992 (August 9, 1992)
Sincerely, Stuart Lau
****************************************
Stuart Lau
University Registrar
Office of Admissions and Records
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Ph: (808) 956-8010
****************************************
Her whereabouts are unaccounted for until August 1961 when she's at her old stomping grounds, Mercer Island, Washington State. that's right, unlike the popular story, Lil Barry grew up for one year there, while Obama Sr. was in Hawaii. Stanley Ann, then known as Ann Obama
Anna Obama phone listing, as listed in Seattle Reverse Directory,
"Obama Anna Mrs EA3-3346" at "516 Villa Ria Apartments"
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr13 ... ttleRe.jpg
Listing for Stanley Ann Obama appears in the 1961 Polk directory at the Seattle Public Library: "Obama Anna Mrs studt h516 13th Ave. E. apt. 2"
http://www.seattlechatclub.org/ObamaListSm.jpg
Mar 1962 -- Mary Toutonghi babysat Obama Jr at Ann Dunham (aka Anna Obama) apartment for two months (through May 1962) Obama baby sitter awaits new era — Soldotna woman eager for former charge’s reign:
http://redoubtreporter.blogspot.com/200 ... w-era.html
Ann went to the University of WA:
From: pubrec@u.washington.edu [mailto:pubrec@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008
Subject: Re: Stanley "Ann" Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registration
Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington for:
Autumn 1961
Winter 1962
Spring 1962
The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.
Madolyne Lawson
Office of Public Records
206-543-9180
Her U of WA transcript:
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr13 ... hlight.jpg
---------------------------------
Anyway, back to the story:
She's 18, impregnated by a foreign national of another race, how do you think the parent's felt?
How did Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. get married in Hawaii, when he was already married and would have broken bigamy law?
Here is a quote from a beltway D.C. lawyer/insider:
"They (Stanley Ann and Obama Sr.) went to Kenya between terms at U of Hawaii in late January of 1961 to get married. The did that because marriage in the US would have constituted the crime of Bigamy.
She became friends with his Kenya relatives and remained in Kenya after the marriage--she was estranged from her parents.
She came to term in late July and intended to board an airplane to return for the birth but was not permitted to board because of her condition. Kid drops in Coast Provincial General Hospital outside of Mombasa in Kenya (Ann went there because of the British doctors) early in the morning on August 4 Kenya time (as indicated by the fraudulent birth certificate posted earlier in the day today)--still August 3 on the West Coast of the US.
BOAC flight schedules in use in August of 1961 are posted in original copy on the Long Thread on this topic. Route back from Kenya at that time is out of Nariobi connecting through Glascow Scotland through Vancouver BC. She could well have been on board before August 4 started in the US.
Her friend Susan Blake's live testimony has been readily available on line for some time.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107889
Stanley Ann arrived in Seattle from Vancouver at a time before she had learned to changed diapers (which usually occurs within 48 hours in a normal birth setting). That puts her on Mercer Island on the 6th of August.
She then proceeds to Honolulu and she and her mother file some document with Hawaii Public Health.
Simple. That's the way it happened in fact."
In addition, Stanley Ann Dunham (with her rare first name) was remembered years later by witnesses seeing a distraught young woman denied boarding to the U.S. at a Kenyan airport because of her late term pregnancy July 1961. But raising such concerns abroad brings fatal consequences:
CARE Director and two US Aid Workers Killed in Nairobi
http://www.eagleworldnews.com/2007/01/3 ... n-nairobi/
Former Presbyterian Missionary, Daughter Killed in Kenya
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20 ... index.html
What are the odds individuals connected are killed the same day in random carjackings? To understand why they were targeted, one must read their histories...others lives are in danger.
Another interesting point, dear readers, there was a certain choir director at Reverand Wrights Church, with a certain sexual preference that made accusations about Barry who was found shot in the head one month earlier.
Such is the corruption of absolute power, and what we're dealing with.
1/20/2010 7:30:37 PM
Very good article... What has my curiosity is this: That is alot of Exspensive Education, Did Anns parents pay for all that schooling in Washington and Hawaii? Or did the same people who paid for Barrys education foot the bill?
Hawaii launches defense to Obama birth queries
Posts 'vital records' Web page saying responses 'not' required
Posted: January 24, 2010
7:25 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
It could be that the state of Hawaii is overwhelmed by – or is just annoyed at – the number of inquiries about the birth records of President Obama.
The state has launched a new web page with the information it wants the public to know about its Obama records, including the fact that state law does not "require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency."
After all, a new poll confirms just 51 percent of Americans believe Obama eligible for the office he now holds...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122875
_________________________________________________
No change in the existing policy - no worse, no better, no difference.
[size=117][a message to American Grand Jury]
The Congress, the courts, and the czars are rebelling against the authority of the Constitution. The gang of 1000 is breaking their oath to support and defend the Constitution, thus disempowering it. This totalitarian oligarchy annuls or reduces the authority of the Constitution, subjecting the nation to the capricious authority of the muzzle of a gun.
The military, sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, is the only human institution with the power to repulse the Chicago Machine, rogue “law enforcement officers,â€
Especially if you add a few hundred thousand civilians to the mix of supporting them. :wink:
The only way I fear that Obama will be recognized as a fraud is through a popular revolt that the Democrats, and yes, the Republicans can't ignore. The GOVERNMENT is complicit in this coverup. Both parties. However, when the Democrats recognize the damage being done to their party they may very well throw Obama under the bus to save their own skins. I would love the military to step in but the powers that be would never allow it as it would put their agenda on display front and center.
More than one FOIA applicant to the Social Security Administration obtained the copy below, which is posted on the Orly Taitz, Esq., site. The printed form reads, "Revised 7 - 85" or perhaps "Revised 7 - 65", but the handwriting reads, "May 22, 1959".
The sun never sets on this corruption, and it runs deep. Makes you wonder how they missed his registration record at Fransiskus Assisi Primary School in Jakarta, Indonesia.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-conte...2-621x1024.jpg