The Democratic National Convention submitted notarized certifications of nomination to Secretarys of State in order to place the names of electors and/or candidates on the 2008 general election ballot. However, the process used by the Democratic party for placing Barack Obama's name on the ballot is under fire by citizens in several states where complaints of election fraud have been filed with Attorneys General. In the case of Mr. Richie, the complaint of election fraud states the following:
Specifically, under Texas law, if the candidate for President of the United States ("POTUS") from the major political party meets the federal requirements of the job, then election officials must print the candidates name on the general election ballot. Under the Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, the POTUS must be a Natural Born Citizen ("NBC"). To get Barack Obama's name on the general election ballot, Mr. Richie formally submitted to Ann McGeehan, Director of Elections, Office of Secretary of State, 2 (two) Certifications of Nomination swearing that Mr. Obama was "duly nominated" as the candidate for POTUS for the Democrat Party and had met the legal qualifications for the job. However, overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to the fact at the time he signed and forwarded these Certifications he could not have ascertained Mr. Obama is a NBC. And in Texas, swearing he is a NBC without ascertaining he is, for the purpose of obtaining a place on the ballot, constitutes election fraud.
Click here and here for further details.
Shalifa Williamson was selected by the DNC to notarize these certifications. Thus, when she put her notary seal on those certifications, she became a witness to election fraud. For this reason, I began to learn what I could about her, and to attempt a FOIA request for access to her notary journal.
Ms. Williamson received her notary commission on September 6, 2007; her commission expires September 6, 2011. She is married to professional boxer, DaVarryl Williamson, and resides in Aurora, Colorado. After checking two campaign contribution sources I could find no record that Shalifa or DaVarryl contributed to any political candidates, not even Barack Obama. Her Application for Notary Commission includes the following business address, phone number, and email:
No business name cited
1560 Broadway
Denver, CO 80202
303-318-9765
WilliamsonS@DemConvention.com
Since she lists a Democratic Convention email address in 2007, this suggests Ms. Williamson was employed in some capacity by the Democratic party well in advance of the national convention.
A reverse directory check of the business phone revealed the owner of that number was Lailah Tuhgalag, whose address was listed by Intellius as 1235 Grant, Denver, CO. Unfortunately, I could find no further information about this individual. As for the Democratic Convention email, it is now defunct, and so is the phone number.
Rules for notaries vary from state to state, but generally notaries are expected to maintain a journal of every notarial act. Some states also allow public access to those journals. In order to determine the rules for Colorado, I filed an open records request directly with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office since I initially did not have Ms. Williamson's contact information. Notary Program Assistant, Lori Lennartz, in the Licensing & Enforcement Division, replied back by sending me a copy of Ms. Williamson’s Application for Notary Commission. She also said,
Our notaries were not required to keep a journal until July 2009. Even if she did keep a journal it would be up to her to release it to you as we do not have any jurisdiction over there[sic] journals.Unfortunately, as this 2004 FBI matrix shows, Ms. Lennartz’s statement appears to be correct.
Following the 2008 election, the Colorado legislature recognized that notarial laws needed to be changed “. . . to correct instances of fraud in relation to circulator's affidavits during the 2008 general election".* The new notarial laws became effective July 1, 2009, making journals a requirement. For more details read Colorado's New Notarial Law FAQs.
I then wrote back to Ms. Lennartz and asked for a copy of or a link to the notary rules which were in effect prior to July 1, 2009. Ms. Lennartz replied again saying,
No I don’t have them anymore. Once the new law took affect we recycled the old law books and the web site only has current information on it.Ms. Lennartz’s reply seemed illogical because historical records must be available somewhere as a reference for law enforcement purposes. Since I found her answer dissatisfactory, I wrote to Richard Coolidge, Director of Communications for the office of the Colorado Secretary of State. After explaining my correspondence with Ms. Lennartz, I said “Surely, for legal purposes, a copy of the old notary rule book still exists somewhere, and thus should be available to the public upon request. Would you please look into this for me?” I also asked him if he could help me find the old statutes as well as the open records laws in effect in 2008 that might apply to notaries. Although Mr. Coolidge did not provide me with a copy of a notary handbook for 2008, he did provide the following information:
Attached is the legislation passed last year that outlines changes to the old law, which is now current law, as it relates to Notaries.The Act, which Mr. Coolidge attached, confirms that as of July 1, 2009, notaries must keep a journal of all notarial acts. The “missing” 2008 notary handbook may not be an oversight since the National Notary Association currently does not link to a notary handbook for Colorado, even though the NNA links to handbooks in 43 other states. (However, Ms. Lennartz’s comments above suggest that some kind of handbook did exist in 2008.) As for access to “public” records, Colorado statute 24-72-203, which was cited above, states the following:
Also, below is a link to the Colorado Open Records Law:
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpExt.dll?f=templates&eMail=Y&fn=main-h.htm&cp=cocode/6ffa0/3b841/43003/43005/430ad/43131
And, the following link are “allowance and denial of open records”:
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpExt.dll?f=templates&eMail=Y&fn=main-h.htm&cp=cocode/6ffa0/3b841/43003/43005/430ad/43131
Let me know if you need anything further.
(1) (a) All public records shall be open for inspection by any person at reasonable times,Of course, there are a large number of exceptions to the rule too numerous to list, but they can be read at the link shown in Mr. Coolidge's reply.
Because of this next statute, it’s likely that Ms. Williamson would be compelled to get permission from Nancy Pelosi or someone in the Democratic party before releasing any existing records. What are the odds of that happening?
(2)(b) If an official custodian has custody of correspondence sent by or received by an elected official, the official custodian shall consult with the elected official prior to allowing inspection of the correspondence for the purpose of determining whether the correspondence is a public record.If Ms. Williamson does not renew her commission on or before September 6, 2011, she will be required to turn over her records (as far as they exist) to the Colorado Secretary of State. Once in possession of the State, the notary’s records clearly become public records. However, if Ms. Williamson renews her commission, her journals will remain in her possession.
An unanswered question in my mind is this: If records were kept by Ms. Williamson in 2008, (even though the law did not require a journal), would those records be considered “public” while still in her possession?
Not to leave a stone unturned, I have submitted an open records request directly to Shalifa Williamson just to see if she responds. So far, she has not replied, but only a few days have passed. However, I can say that the email I sent to her private address was not returned by the mail server.
If anything of interest happens, I will post an update.
_______
*"What is the circulator's affidavit? A circulator's affidavit is a form that is attached or annexed to the signatures gathered in support of a citizen-initiated petition, wherein the circulator attests or swear to various facts. Since the affidavit is in essence an oath, the circulator's signature must be witnessed and the facts in the affidavit sworn to or affirmed before a Notary or other officer authorized to administer oaths in Colorado."
T-Paws:
ReplyDeleteTruly splendid investigative work. Kudos!! Please keep us posted as things progress or transpire.
No one believes birthers. Ann Coulter doesn't. Bill O'Reilly doesn't. Glenn Beck doesn't, and Fox News doesn't. The Wall Street Journal certainly doesn't.
ReplyDeleteIt said: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."
The reason that no one believes birthers is that the evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is overwhelming.
Obama has already shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the short-form Certification of Live Birth. It is the only birth certificate that Hawaii currently issues. Hawaii no longer issues copies of the original birth certificate. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)
The Certification of Live Birth is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the military. And, in Obama's case, the fact that he was born in Hawaii was confirmed twice by the two top officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii.
Your self-serving words should have been accompanied by some sort of a disclaimer informing all readers that you are a paid-for (by tax money) Flying Monkey, e.g. an Obama-fancier that is more than willing to spew such nonsense about on as many blogs as possible.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, every point you attempt to proffer as correct has been refuted multiple times. One wonders why you persist in such nonsense in view of things like the link to the Complaint of Election Fraud in TX linked above. Perhaps you'd like to "rethink" you posting or - better yet - just be honest and remain silent.
jtx does not discuss the facts. She or he simply says that what I have said has been refuted. But, it HASN'T BEEN REFUTED. It has not been refuted. It is true.
ReplyDeleteObama has posted the official birth certificate of Hawaii. It says that he was born in Hawaii on it. There was no way to get a birth certificate in Hawaii that says "born in Hawaii" on it unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii. The facts on Obama's official birth certificate--that he was born in Hawaii in 1961--were confirmed twice by the officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii.
The Wall Street Journal said:
“Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
World Net Daily has a perspective on the matter and your choice of naming names as to who is for and against ... and Glenn Beck was referring to the wackos who give the birth questioners (serious and intellectual ones like Erica) a bad name.
ReplyDeleteThe link to WND:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=120992
While Obama certainly cannot be condemned for what happened at birth, his qualifications as candidate/president remain questionable; and looking at the big picture of his character, his associations with the criminal and corrupt element - it all boils down that no person like him should hold office in the US Congress or Oval Office. But then look who is running things in Congress now.
Even if one gave a benefit of doubt concerning Obama's birth, he is certainly guilty of perjury and obstruction. Hmm, didn't a president undergo an impeachment trial for that?
Don't categorize Erica as a "wacko conspiracy theory person" - her dedication to uncover the truth will blow your diatribe out of the water. Don't condemn JTX for not providing specific details or links - it is provided in each and every article that Erica posts. I have provided one above.
Two issues:
ReplyDelete1. I think the notary just verifies that whom ever signed the document had some type of identification verifying there identity. What is in the document is not a big concern and I do not believe the person would be held accountable for the content of it.
2. Nancy was not an elected official when she signed the documents, she was signing as a DNC official.
Both statements are true. Notaries are not concerned with the content of a document that they notarize. They are, however, required to verify, in person, the identity of the person signing the document, unless the person is known personally by the notary. In most cases, anyone presenting a document for notarization must present appropriate identification, and in many cases the notary is required to have the person swear an oath. View some of the handbooks used in other states (http://www.nationalnotary.org/about/index.cfm?text=libHandbooks) to compare and contrast. Without a handbook for Colorado, I don't know what the policy was in 2008, and I can't even find one for 2009 yet. What it boils down to is I would like to know if the "correct" process, whatever that might have been, was followed according to legal protocol. Did someone just bring Ms. Williamson a pile of signed documents to notarize without the individuals being present with ID? I'm also especially interested in find out why Mr. Richie completed two certifications and why they are on Texas Democratic Party letterhead instead of the DNC. There might be clues in Ms. Williamson's records, if they exist for that period.
ReplyDeleteohio:
ReplyDeleteRONG-O once again my friend! NONE of what you present in your Flying Monkey diatribe is accurate nor factual. Nor have you (or anyone else) EVER presented a genuine verifiable BC for the guy you are trying to protect. This in spite of the fact that the BC is not meaningful IAE since your hero has admitted several times that his daddy was an alien. You'd have to explain that little fact away as well as come up with a genuine, verifiable BC but it is not his "citizenship" that is the issue - though both you and he would like to pretend it is so you can claim "see, see, he's a US citizen so he can be Prez". That does not begin to cut the mustard and you seem to not realize that.
Had you troubled yourself to actually read the linked "complaint of election fraud" you would have (assuming you are sentient) come to the conslusion that any reasonable indivudual would have - none of the BC BS you present above means a thing. I needn't refute anything since it is all refuted in that paper which you seem intent (understandably) on not reading.
TJX said: “Nor have you (or anyone else) EVER presented a genuine verifiable BC for the guy you are trying to protect. “
ReplyDeleteAnswer: The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the ONLY one that Hawaii currently issues. Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate (
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html). So, Obama has posted and shown to both FactCheck AND Politifact the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Yes, it is a short-form birth certificate, but when it says “born in Hawii” on it, as Obama’s does, it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the military. And, in Obama’s case the facts on the document—that he was born in Hawaii in 1961—were twice confirmed by the two top officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii.
TJX said: “your hero has admitted several times that his daddy was an alien. “
He is not my hero. He is the President of the United States. He was elected 69 million to 59 million. He received 365 Electoral Votes, and not one elector changed her or his vote despite a campaign by birthers and two-fers to urge them to change their votes. His election was confirmed unanimously by the Congress, and he was sworn in twice by the Chief Justice of the United States. In all of this, the voters and the electors and the congress and the Chief Justice knew that Obama’s father was not a US citizen.
TJX said: “You'd have to explain that little fact away…”
It is simple. The citizenship of the father or of both parents does not affect Natural Born Citizenship status, which is simply determined by the citizen being born in the USA. The original meaning of Natural Born, used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, was simply “born in the country with the exception of children of foreign diplomats.”
That is why we have Federal law cases that rule like this:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
And:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
As you can see, the parents are aliens, in one case even an illegal alien. The children are described as Natural Born Citizens. Why? Because of the fact that they were born in the USA.
Obama has legal and confirmed proof that he was born in the USA, in Hawaii, and hence he is a Natural Born Citizen.
ohio:
ReplyDeleteAre you really that ignorant - or only pretending??? Surely you cannot thing that "showing" anything to the Obama political sites FactCheck, etc. can be considered to be anything like discovery of a certified copy of the original long form BC with any alterations and/or addenda?
Then again, you've certainly illustrated your partisanship in your misinformed posts on this site so perhaps you really DO believe that an electronic copy of something that is not truly a birth certificate (still stated by HI to be in their possession BTW) can ever hold up in a court of law.
At any rate, the two cases you cite which you seem to think are somehow meaningful (Mustata and Diaz-Salazar) are not at all since the use of the terms ?natural born citizen" (Mustata) and "natural-born citizen" (Diaz-Salazar) are both dicta and not part of the decisions of the cases so9 cannot serve as any sort of precedent. Even more than that, neither uses the terms mentioned as meaning the same thing as does the Constitution when is uses the words "natural born Citizen" specifically for presidential eligibility. Neither of the cases you mention are even close but are merely referring to a form of citizenship rather than a qualification for the presidency.
There are several Supreme Court cases standing for many years and never overturned that show very definitely that the term "natural born Citizen" used in the Constitution is as defined by Vattel at the time of the creation of the country as meaning born on US soil (jus soli) and of US parents (jus sanguinis), Note that "parents" is plural which, I should add recognizing your lack of understanding of the language) means two parents ... both Mom and Dad. And it is clear that you choose to ignore the fact that Obama has indicated his daddy was an alien.
Unless the man can show that he is eligible under the laws of the country (since his eligibility has been definitively brought into question - see http://puzo1.blogspot.com/) - then he is not legally President at all and never has been. You'll note that in the Kerchner et al action delineated on the site just mentioned that not only is Obama named as a defendant, but also Congress and others in the government. Perhaps you'd like to refute THOSE arguments rather than spreading around all of the Flying Monkey dung.
It's apparent you are a bought and paid for political operative - and that's fine since it's your prerogative but that does not mean that such mewings of such a clearly uninformed partisan, blind to the real world implications of destroying the Constitution, need to be - or should be - swallowed whole by those who've not researched a bit.
Perhaps even you - who have most likely never lived under a Communist dictator - do not realize the implications of that, so perhaps you should think and research a bit more deeply rather than just accept "Obama money" to try to pull off your deceit.
The two recent cases you cite are legally meaningless as I've noted and in view of the several long-standing SCOTUS precedential cases and other evidence for the time of the founding of our country ... you haven't a leg to stand on!
Despite your nonsensical and unsupported claims (and those of other Flying Monkeys), Obama has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies ... and the United States Constitution requires that he do so.
Mr. Ohio,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "It is simple. The citizenship of the father or of both parents does not affect Natural Born Citizenship status, which is simply determined by the citizen being born in the USA. The original meaning of Natural Born, used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, was simply “born in the country with the exception of children of foreign diplomats.”
You’re either lying or you’re confused! If you doubt my words, then here's a challenge for you.
Visit the Undead Revolution website. As unusual as that site name may sound, the owners probably named it UR to illustrate that the founding principles of the American Revolution still live, and they can be found in historical documents. The site went quiet for awhile after publishing their initial research. There’s been a lot of activity since March 1, 2010.
UR was started by a study group of historians--NOT POLITICIANS. The results of their research is being employed by some of the attorneys who challenge Obama's eligibility. Furthermore, this study group is on the verge of publishing a compendium of all their research results. Let’s just say that Obama and his supporters will not be pleased with the results.
You will discover when you read through the blog that these historians are very thorough in their methodology, and they don’t suffer fools who try to confuse the public. One such obot, smrstrauss, tried and failed miserably. You'll also be pleased to discover that these historians have issues with some of the attorneys who are using the results of their research, which means even I have to keep an open mind about the players.
Now if you really think you’re up to the task of challenging the historical experts, have at it!
http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
And you might also want to drop in to visit Zapem’s site, a fellow historian working with UR.
http://zapem.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/obama-knew-he-wasnt-eligible-for-potus/
Re: Showing a "short form" proof of citizenship does not equal to the truth. "
ReplyDeleteThe short-form birth certificate of Hawaii is now the official birth certificate, and it is the only birth certificate that Hawaii issues. It no longer issues copies of the original birth certificate. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html). It is not possible to get from a Hawaii a birth certificate (long or short form) that says on it "born in Hawaii," as Obama's does, unless there is proof that the child was born in Hawaii. And, in Obama's case, the facts on his published official birth certificate were confirmed twice by the officials in the department of health of Hawaii.
The Wall Street Journal commented:
"Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."
By the way, there is absolutely no proof or even a credible report that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii. His Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. Listen to the complete tape, until after the question “Whereabouts was he born?” http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-
The National Review commented: "The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”
Re: "owners probably named it UR to illustrate that the founding principles of the American Revolution still live, and they can be found in historical documents. The site went quiet for awhile after publishing their initial research. There’s been a lot of activity since March 1, 2010."
ReplyDeleteThe owners are wrong. They are not Constitutional experts. Here are two:
Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Here is a prominent law dictionary's definition of Natural Born Citizen:
"“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Here is Yale Law Review: ": It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. "
Here is the decision in a federal law case that calls the US-born children of two foreign citizens Natural Born Citizens:
"Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States."
As you can see, neither of the parents are citizens, but the children are natural born citizens.
In addition, I have quotes from John Adams, John Jay and others showing that they used Natural Born Citizen as equivalent to the British Natural Born Subject, and a Natural Born Subject was simply a person born in the country with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.
Birthers and two-fers tried to convince the members of the Electoral College to change their votes because of their claim that the foreign citizenship of the parents affected Natural Born status. Not one person changed his vote. The same applied to the Congress, which confirmed the election of Obama unanimously, and of course he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Re: "DO believe that an electronic copy of something that is not truly a birth certificate (still stated by HI to be in their possession BTW) can ever hold up in a court of law."
ReplyDeleteIn order to show a document you have to make an image of it. That is what most people see. We know that Obama has the physical copy of his birth certificate, and the Certification of Live Birth IS a birth certificate, because he showed it to both FactCheck and Politifact. The most important fact, however, is that the officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii have said twice that the facts on the published birth certificate are confirmed by the document in the files.
All citizens at birth, meaning all persons who gain their US citizenship due to birth in the USA, are Natural Born Citizens. Your citations of Supreme Court cases are simply wrong. The key case is Wong Kim Ark, which said clearly that every child born in the USA is Natural Born.
When someone is both a citizen and Natural Born, she or he is obviously a Natural Born Citizen. That is why there is a VAST amount of dicta saying that children born in the USA of foreign parents are Natural Born Citizens, because under the Wong Kim Ark ruling they are Natural Born, and under the 14th Amendment they must be US citizens, so they all are Natural Born Citizens.
The section of the explanation behind the new CO Notary law which is excerpted above, might be misleading. Just to be clear, while it mentions "fraud" in relation to the 2008 "general election," this fraud has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fraud of swearing to the eligibility of any candidate before ascertaining such eligibility. Here is the definition of "circulator's affidavit" also appearing in the National Notary Association FAQ page, linked to, above.
ReplyDelete"What is the circulator's affidavit? A circulator's affidavit is a form that is attached or annexed to the signatures gathered in support of a citizen-initiated petition, wherein the circulator attests or swear to various facts. Since the affidavit is in essence an oath, the circulator's signature must be witnessed and the facts in the affidavit sworn to or affirmed before a Notary or other officer authorized to administer oaths in Colorado."
ohio:
ReplyDeleteNonsense!! Show us one instance where any HI "certification of live birth" has been accepted by a court of law to demonstrate US citizenship ... and remember, Obama hasn't even provided that actual physical document, but rather an electronic image of something claimed (by political operatives such as yourself) to be such.
That won't "work" in court - nor here - regardless of what the Fox "mouths' believe or even the WSJ. And you apparently believe that HI would fail to honor a court order from a Federal Court to produce the original BC (and ancillary or amended documents) in question. I believe that's a false hope that many of you have.
ohio:
ReplyDeleteAlso - in all of your shenanigans about US "citizenship" and "BC" info let's keep in mind that such is not the issue at all ... eligibility under the laws of the country is the issue. And the issue of nbC for those you mention was never challenged while Obama has publicly proclaimed that his father was not a US citizen thereby making him ineligible to hold the office he now occupies.
... of course if he can now prove that his father was a US citizen and that he himself was born in the US then he's "home free" as they say except some "little things" like fraud and perjury (but the politicians seem to often think that's normal).
As example in this argument - John McCain, being born while father served in Panama, had to produce a long form to substantiate citizenship - both parents were US Citizens; in the case of Obama, he only produced a copy of a short form, and not the long form required, but for some unexplainable reason this was accepted by POTUS (and ignored by the courts), despite the fact that Obama's father was a Kenyan, not US Citizen, and loyal to the Kenyan nation, not the US. He was only in America on student visa.
ReplyDeleteBut what keeps bothering me is this:
If Obama was born in Kenya and then mother and father went to Hawaii, how did she get through customs without a passport issued by the embassy in Kenya? And, if there was a passport issued for the infant, how could it possibly be legal?
All of the points of law that Erica clearly points out still rides on the question: Was Barack Obama born in Hawaii or was he born in Kenya? Did he have dual citizenship, which that alone would make him not eligible to run for the presidency.
And beyond this issue, what about the lies and deceptions? What about the man's long-list record of associates, mentors, et cetera of corrupt and criminal persons - a gamut of people that runs from an American terrorist who escaped the law and now is a professor in Chicago, a man who was indicted for fraud, a preacher who publicly showed is a racist and hatred of Americans that are not black, of his country from which he was born, and a supported of terrorist organizations to name a few?
Shame on the American people who voted him to the highest office in the land. Shame on the those who were too timid to speak out for fear of being called racist. Shame on the media for backing such a shady character backed by the most powerful and corrupt political machine in America.
Have Americans become so desperate for 'change' that they cannot see the parasitic tyrant, not unlike the mistake made by the German people in the 1930s?
Have we become so brainwashed that we cannot choose a candidate on individual basis, rather than what political club he belongs to?
This matter requires settlement in court and the people in charge of candidate qualifications be reprimanded, as well as a good example that all candidates should undergo a security clearance background check; for indeed these individuals have access to information, as well as the opportunity, with the help of associates in Congress to wield that power and ignore the will and welfare of the American citizen and our nation.
Ohio: Don't provide rhetoric concerning 'shennigans' - this 44th President of the United States makes Bill Clinton look like an angel.
Mr. Ohio,
ReplyDeletePoint 1. The birth certificate issue is only of secondary interest to me. The definition of natural born Citizenship is of primary interest to me. All arguments about the BC are moot as far as I’m concerned because Obama has dual citizenship.
Point 2. You clearly DID NOT read the research done by the study group at Undead Revolution because you don’t give a damn about the truth or the Consitution. Whatever your motivation, you will defend Obama against the Constitution at all costs, even if it means lying. That makes you an Alinskyite.
Point 3. I am convinced you are smrstrauss using a different pen name and email address. In your previous comment of this thread you used the same fictional quote from the Wall Street Journal that you have posted all over the internet, and the same comments about Hatch and Grahm, etc. ad nauseum. A simple search of your words at the WSJ site confirms your quotation to be fictional. Your comments are easily recognizable.
Point 4. You’ve had your say. You’re wrong. You’re banned.
Re: "And you apparently believe that HI would fail to honor a court order from a Federal Court to produce the original BC (and ancillary or amended documents) in question."
ReplyDeleteHawaii would honor the court order and show the original birth certificate which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. But I thought you were not interested in that.
For the record. The person using the name Ohio just attempted two more comments which have been marked as spam and will not be allowed to stand.. I suggested in my reply at 1:58 pm that I believed Ohio to be a person who typically uses the moniker smrstrauss. If there was any doubt prior to my remarks, there is absolutely none following these last two attempts, one at 4:12 pm and one at 4:16 pm. Why? Because the Ohio who posted earlier used an anonymous ip address. The Ohio who attempted two additional posts after being banned used the same ip that smrstrauss has used in the past. H/she also used the same email address in all comments.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, this particular Ohio/smrstrauss is actually the wife of smrstrauss. Her name is Ann. Ann was warned on on 2/26/10 when she posted virtually the same remarks on "Obama Knew He Wasn't Eligibile" that if she attempted to post lies again on this blog that I would out she and her husband. She ignored that warning.
Now, madam, a new article about you and your husband is under construction.
Reference: Exposé: Obot SMRSTRAUSS Finally Unmasked!
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/02/expose-obot-smrstrauss-finally-unmasked.html