Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

video at the link..

BORN IN THE USA?
Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court

Posted: February 17, 2011
2:23 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) delivers remarks at the Chrysler Indiana Transmission Plant II in Kokomo, Indiana on November 23, 2010. Obama along with Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Kokomo as part of their White House to Main Street tour of areas helped by the Recovery Act and auto industry bailout. UPI/Brian Kersey Photo via Newscom

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Available to order now! The definitive answer on Obama's eligibility, in "Where's The Birth Certificate?" by New York Times best-selling author Dr. Jerome Corsi.

Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Story continues below)



He also argued that if court members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."

"We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.


Case motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan

"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.

"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND's request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans.

"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."

That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.


Docketing information from Supreme Court

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

The video:

Hemenway's arguments came in the petition for rehearing that followed the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments. However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.

That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.

Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Kagan and Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the fourth day of her confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 16, 2009. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom

Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.

"Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court," said the document, submitted to the court.

"Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, 'as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought … and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.' Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners' petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion," Hemenway wrote.

"Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure," the brief explains.

"If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate," the brief states.

The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered "the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president 'be' a 'natural born citizen.'"
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, President Obama's pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, testifies during the second day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 29, 2010. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom

The argument continued, "Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners' motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase 'natural born citizen.'

"That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country," the filing said.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.

"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.

"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.

"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.

Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.

It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.

WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.


Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.

Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.

Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."

It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.

"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.

Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.

"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.


Judge James Robertson

In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.

The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."

"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.

"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,…' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.

Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.

"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.

Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.

"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.

The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.

Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EKZ8KiXC
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264897


Kathyet

Am I reading the begining right saying they will hold another conference on the subject or only another conference is requested? So much stuff there yah get kinda lost.

Just want to know as it stands today what is being done and what chances currently are there of even having a conference or hearing?

As far as I can tell the justices try to ignore it and the other side keeps bringing it up,


from the article

A spokeswoman for the court told WND the motion for recusal was received Dec. 30, but the justices wouldn't treat it as an actual motion for the court, just as a "request."

"These types of requests are not treated as motions, but are requests that are forwarded by the clerk's office to the justice or justices to which the request is addressed. The requests are handled by the individual justice or justices.

"If a justice recuses from a case the recusal is noted on the docket typically at the time the court issues an order acting on the case," the spokeswoman said.

However, the document prepared for the Supreme Court clearly stated "Motion for Recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan," and a second time, "Petitioners' Motion to Recuse."

But the court spokeswoman declined to respond to the inquiries about the procedures regarding recusal of justices who have a personal stake in such cases -- what ethical guidelines are used by the court to determine those cases and whether there was a violation of the court rules in the case.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.

"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.

"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.

"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.

Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.

It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.

WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.


Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.

Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.

Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."

It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.

"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.

Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.

"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.


Judge James Robertson

In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.

The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."

"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.

"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,…' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.

Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.

"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.

Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.

"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.

The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.





Read more: Supreme Court told: Don't avoid eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261393#ixzz1EL3u1wro





Kathyet

patriotupdate.com/3262/supreme-court-schedules-conference-on-obamas-eligibility

Thank you for that good article from WorldNetDaily.

Does anyone expect that Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would recuse themselves just because they should? If I understand recusal correctly, it is voluntary on the part of the recusing justice. A justice is not required by law to recuse; it is up to his or her own sense of justice, ethics, and honor.

But these two are not just, ethical, or honorable persons, any more than is Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who came to the Supreme Court by way of an ACLU project directorship.

For six years, Sonia Sotomayor was a member of La Raza (The Race), the Hispanic Ku Klux Klan (although its apologists call it an Hispanic version of the NAACP, attempting to hitch illegal aliens to lawful American citizens' struggle for their civil rights).

Anyone looked at Butterdezillion's blog lately? She has some outstanding research -
no, fabulous research.

Good blog MinutemanCDC_SC. Thanks for sharing it.



An Open Letter to America


BARACK OBAMA…PRESIDENT OR PRETENDER? by Robert Quinn (Feb. 20, 2011) — Neil Abercrombie, Dem. Governor of Hawaii and long-time friend of Obama family members, said he would obtain Obama’s original Hawaiian Department of Health Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) to settle the Presidential issue for good. Two weeks later, he now says that no [...]

BARACK OBAMA…PRESIDENT OR PRETENDER?

by Robert Quinn

Barack Hussein Obama has not released any of his personal records, including an original birth certificate. He also claims a British father, which would seem to have made him a British citizen at birth. How, then, could be qualify as a "natural born Citizen" to be President of the United States?

(Feb. 20, 2011) — Neil Abercrombie, Dem. Governor of Hawaii and long-time friend of Obama family members, said he would obtain Obama’s original Hawaiian Department of Health Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) to settle the Presidential issue for good. Two weeks later, he now says that no Birth Certificate was found in Hawaii’s records, only a “written notationâ€

Originally Posted by daughter of the king at forums.hannity.com

Nobody has to play dodgeball. The truth[, all of the truth,] and only the truth works best for everyone. [Mrs.] Palin should not dodge anything or anyone. When asked about this issue or any other, point out the facts...

• Article II demands no one except a natural born citizen as POTUS (fact 1);
• Obama has declared being born a British citizen (fact 2);
  
• Obama continues to hide physical, observable evidence to his assertion he was born in Hawaii (fact 3).

Brilliant, and concise.

Attorneys Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz, John Hemenway, Philip Berg, Stephen Pidgeon, Gary Kreep, and yes, even "Dr. Cal Lightman" would be proud, daughter of the King.

When did the impostor assert that he was born in Hawaii? He usually hedges: "Others say I was not born in Hawaii."

Originally Posted by Dr. Jerome R. Corsi for WorldNetDaily

Additional research has established that the grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham,
lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, not Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham.
www.wnd.com/?pageId=107337

Very close, but not precisely, Dr. Corsi.
6085 K. Hwy. was also the Dunhams' daughter's residence of record until Aug. 19, 1961, when her night classes began at the University of Washington in Seattle..



Anna Dunham Obama probably lived with her parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, in the rented 400 sq. ft. trailer "guest house" in the back yard at 6085 Kalaniana'ole Highway. Two blocks off Waikiki Beach on Honolulu's main street, and now assessed at $700,000, the big house would have been a bit pricey for a furniture store manager and a bank loan interviewer, even if it had been available to rent. Although the actual owners did not live at 6085 K Hwy. when they purchased the house in 1958, the Polk directory documents that they did live there by 1963, indicating that they possibly (probably?) lived there in 1961.

Madelyn and/or Stanley Armour Dunham recorded the Dunham family address when they submitted a handwritten registration of a non-hospital birth to their daughter. We have found no record of Anna Obama being in Hawaii between February of 1961 and 1963. But if the registration were dated before Aug. 19th, 1961, Anna conceivably might have submitted it herself... theoretically.

What makes that so improbable is the two additional 2670 mile flights for a new mother and baby. They had already traveled from Mombasa (where the birth took place), to Nairobi, to London with an intermediate stop, to Toronto, to Vancouver with an intermediate stop, across the U.S. border without a passport for the baby (easy in 1961), and to Seattle. Additional flights from Seattle to Honolulu and return, just to register the birth, would have been an unnecessary hardship on the new mother and baby. If Madelyn Dunham had wanted to see her grandson right away, it would have been far more convenient for her to fly to Seattle and back to Honolulu by herself.

The birth registration is the handwritten evidence that Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie was seeking in the archives. If Anna Obama's signature is not on the handwritten registration, making it public would not further the deception: the Honolulu birth myth. Gov. Abercrombie also should have been seeking the resulting official (and final) State of Hawaii birth document (registration, certificate, certification): signed, embossed, and filed, amended in 1967(?) and refiled, amended again in 1971 and refiled, and locked up in the Hawaii Dept. of Health vault... where it was supposed to be.

Birthers, Birth Certificates, Constitutional Crisis, Obama’s eligibility

Not only will Obama eligibility lies be exposed, so will the media who protected him

By Dr. Laurie Roth
Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Like most of you, I realize you can’t agree with every TV or radio talk show host on every issue. However, we see the push and necessity to support our own and lift the banner of conservative common sense high, especially with this radical regime in the White House.

As a national radio talk show host therothshow.com , I realize all too much the sound bite theatre, ratings pressure and competition, even jealousy among radio and TV hosts. I am a growing host and have done national radio and TV for years…I understand ego. At the very least hosts want to keep their jobs, grow big and make lots of money during their careers. With all that in mind I find it growingly unforgivable that who I would expect to be leaders in my field, media and entertainment, continue to marginalize, minimize and insult those daring to question Barack Obama’s eligibility.

Not all the big hosts have thrown the ‘questioning’ crowd under the bus including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs. I have heard them on various occasions question Obama’s eligibility. Rush even has called Obama an imposter. Yet it is still far from enough pressure and depth.

The self proclaimed leaders on cutting issues Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, the Holy Grail of No Spin and media courage, apparently can’t find any courage when it comes to honestly taking on and exploring this growing issue of concern by the masses regarding Obama’s eligibility. They have insulted and demeaned so-called ‘birthers.’

This is not just a birther opinion crises, this is a legal and constitutional crises supported and protected by the media! This is also a huge crime against America in my opinion. Should this not be a mainstream issue on ALL news shows until it is resolved?

Bill O’Reilly has said on his show that he has seen the Long form Birth Certificate. That is a lie. It has been locked away and only the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ has been displayed by Obama’s staff and shown to others. That is the document Hawaii offers to foreign born individuals.

Some have said that if Obama had not been born in Hawaii, Hillary Clinton would have found out as much as she wanted the Presidency that bad. Even if Hillary and Bill wanted to find it and expose it she couldn’t have. She may think she is God but she ain’t. Obama has paid big bucks to lock it away well before he was elected so no one could have seen it.

Beck has implied that Birthers are discrediting themselves so why should Obama show the birth certificate? How is digging for the truth to protect our country and constitution ‘discrediting’ ourselves? Other conservative crusaders credited with boldness and honesty on most accounts have also minimized and insulted birthers and the eligibility issue such as Ann Coulter and Andrew Breitbart, whom I interviewed at CPAC this year.

Did the Owners of Fox and the money people behind Fox influence Beck and O’Reilly? Something has to be up since everyone of the conservative headliners has mostly gone the other way on this critical issue. They have done the opposite of displaying honesty, integrity, intelligence and courage on this growing national emergency of an issue.

Recently at CPAC in DC, I interviewed Dr. Jerri Corsi, who has done an in depth investigation into Obama and his eligibility. As I shared in my last article, he said the real story, regardless of where the long form birth certificate is, is that Obama lied. It is a proven fact that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Corsi has checked all records, media and hospitals in existence there and it is a fact that Obama was not born there. His new book called ‘Where is the Birth Certificate’ comes out on the shelves in May but can be pre ordered now.

Dr. Corsi’s book will put much needed heat and momentum to the fire. Will the big boys and mainstream media wake up then? I’m curious how the ‘No Spin Zone’ and other spin machines of conservative news will go when the truth of it all finally is exposed—and it will be. There will be so much spin that Fox and their hosts will look like messy tornadoes twirling down the halls. America, congress and lawyers will have to pick up a very large constitutional mess. It is coming.

As you consider the facts and your position, remember Governor Neil Abercrombie waltzing back and forth, “I found it and have seen it….then ‘I misspoke and haven’t seen it’ while we also have had Tim Adams, a Hawaii Elections Clerk in 2008 weigh in. He signed an affidavit saying there was no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii in 2008.

Oh well….as the big fancy hosts apparently believe, this is a distraction and no big deal. Yes, they must be right. Who am I but a brain injured, struggling, wanna be Talk Show host. Let me review the pathetic and hallucinogenic fact trail defining my mental illness:

1. Obama has paid nearly 2 million dollars to hide all his records, including his long form birth certificate.

2. Obama’s own step Grandmother and 2 Bishops have signed affidavits that he was born in Mombassa, Kenya. These and others are posted on obamacrimes.com

3.Members of Kenyan parliament and even the former Ambassador to Kenya say he was born there.

4. Award winning, investigative Journalist Dr. Jerry Corsi has gone through all records possible in Hawaii and determined that it is not possible that Obama was born there.

5. Governor of Hawaii Neil Abercrombie has seen the Birth Certificate, then not seen the Birth Certificate….translation….he changed his story and lied.

6. Tim Adams, a Hawaii Elections Clerk in 2008 signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii in 2008.

7.Though there have been over a dozen law suits against Obama on eligibility grounds and hero, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin has been Court marshaled and convicted on three counts of disobeying orders. He pleaded guilty on four counts related to disobeying orders. He and his attorney were hoping and expecting discovery to force Obama to show his birth certificate. Lakin was not allowed discovery and exculpatory evidence. That is a crime in itself when most likely Lt. Col. Lakin is correct. Obama is NOT his commander and Chief. Oh, who cares……it is just a brave, decorated Lt. Col and medical Doctor who has faithfully served his country for many years. Let him rot in prison as the real crimes take place at the White House and in our media.

I will not let this go. Invent some more slander and names. I’m getting bored with those used so far.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33647

Where is the Media Research Center on Obama’s Eligibility?
111Share

“YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFENINGâ€

Illegals MARCH ON AUSTIN! PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION!!!!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1188666.html#1188666