Category Archives: constitution

David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

Posted on December 20, 2011 | 67 comments

David Farrar V Barack Obama, Georgia ballot, Obama not natural born citizen, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski motion, GA election laws

“Why did Obama, prior to occupying the White House, employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to assist him in avoiding the presentation of a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells


“Why is Obama now employing private attorneys to keep his name on state ballots, despite compelling evidence that he is not a natural born citizen?…Citizen Wells

Obama has engaged private attorney Michael Jablonski to respond to the Pre Trial order filed by David Farrar. The order requests that Barack Obama’s name be removed from the Georgia State ballot because Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore not qualified for the office of the president.

Some information on Attorney Michael Jablonski.

“Michael Jablonski represents select clients in matters related to politics: campaigns with contract problems; candidates facing ethics charges; political consultants charged with trademark and copyright violations; media buyers and candidates confused by the FCC’s lowest unit charge rules; businesses with campaign contribution problems; citizens using the Georgia Open Records Act or the Federal Freedom of Information Act; and others that have been caught in the mire of campaign finance and ethics law.”

Read more:

http://taarradhin.net/

Looks like Obama has picked the right attorney.

From David Farrar V Barack Obama.
“(4) The issues for determination by the Court are as follows:
A. Is the candidate’s proffered birth certificates, authentic state-issued documents that verify his actual, physical birth in Hawaii?
B. Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163
C. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-560 Making of False Statements Generally. Is the candidate’s Social Security number, authentic?”

Two segments from Mr. Jablonski’s motion.

“The Democratic Party of Georgia determines names to include on its Presidential Preference Primary ballot at its sole discretion. O.C.G.A. 21 -2-193. A state political party “enjoys a constitutionally protected freedom which includes the right to identify the people who constitute this association to those people only.”
“Furthermore, the citizenship issue the plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections, as it has been by every judicial body ever to have considered it.”

My response.

The GA Democratic Party may put anyone they want on the ballot. However, that right does not trump the US Constitution dictate that the president must be a natural born citizen. GA election law clearly provides the Secretary of State and electors the power to challenge the qualifications of candidates. Also, to my knowledge, no court in this country has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen.

I was born and raised in NC, have some experience reading legal documents and we also have some good dictionaries in NC. I have read the motion from Mr. Jablonski as well as the 2008 and 2011 versions of Georgia election laws. I will leave it for the reader to evaluate the accuracy of the following statements by Michael Jablonski in the hope that good dictionaries and logical thought capabilities exist in other parts of the country.

From the motion filed December 16, 2011 by attorney  Michael Jablonski.

“President Obama asks for dismissal of this attempt to deprive the Democratic Party of Georgia of its statutory right to name candidates to the Presidential Preference Party held to apportion Gerogia’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention. No provision of Georgia law authorizes a challenge to a political party’s identification of names it wishes its members to consider in a preference primary for purposes of apportioning delegates to its National Convention.The Democratic Party of Georgia properly identified Barack Obama as a candidate to whom National Convention delegates will be pledged based upon votes in the preference poll. Georgia law does not authorize the Secretary of State to exercise any discretion or oversight over the actions of a political party participating in a preference primary. Indeed, any review by the Secretary of State would interfere with associational rights of the Democratic Party guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
“The Time Limit for filing any challenge under O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 (if it appplies) specifies a two week period after qualifying in which a challenge can be filed.”
“The Secretary of State’s involvement in the Presidential Preference Primary process, other than conducting balloting, is limited to receiving names submitted by political parties for inclusion in the preference primary, publishing the submitted names on a website, and including the names on the ballot.”
“O.C.G.A. 21-2-193. The Presidential Preference Primary statute does not empower the Secretary of State to review submissions of names by political parties.”
“O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 does not apply to the Presidential Preference Primary because the preference primary is not an election”
“Nothing in the context of O.C.G.A. 21-2-5 “clearly requires” applicability to the preference primary.”

From the Georgia Election Statutes.

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193  (2011)

§ 21-2-193.  List of names of candidates to appear on ballot; publication of list
   On a date set by the Secretary of State, but not later than 60 days preceding the date on which a presidential preference primary is to be held, the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot. Such lists shall be published on the website of the Secretary of State during the fourth week immediately preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-200  (2011)

§ 21-2-200.  Applicability of general primary provisions; form of ballot
   A presidential preference primary shall be conducted, insofar as practicable, pursuant to this chapter respecting general primaries, except as otherwise provided in this article. In setting up the form of the ballot, the Secretary of State shall provide for designating the name of the candidate to whom a candidate for delegate or delegate alternate is pledged, if any.”

“TITLE 21.  ELECTIONS 
CHAPTER 2.  ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY 
ARTICLE 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5  (2011)

§ 21-2-5.  Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications
   (a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.

(b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate’s name or reprint the ballots, a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted.”

“TITLE 21.  ELECTIONS 
CHAPTER 2.  ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES GENERALLY 
ARTICLE 5.  PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191  (2011)

§ 21-2-191.  Parties entitled to hold primaries; dates; decision to elect delegates to presidential nominating convention in primary; qualifying periods for candidates for delegate
   As provided in this article, a presidential preference primary shall be held in 2012 and every four years thereafter for each political party or body which has cast for its candidates for President and Vice President in the last presidential election more than 20 percent of the total vote cast for President and Vice President in this state, so that the electors may express their preference for one person to be the candidate for nomination by such person’s party or body for the office of President of the United States; provided, however, that no elector shall vote in the primary of more than one political party or body in the same presidential preference primary. Such primary shall be held in each year in which a presidential election is to be conducted on a date selected by the Secretary of State which shall not be later than the second Tuesday in June in such year. The Secretary of State shall select such date no later than December 1 of the year immediately preceding such primary. A state political party or body may by rule choose to elect any portion of its delegates to that party’s or body’s presidential nominating convention in the primary; and, if a state political party or body chooses to elect any portion of its delegates, such state political party or body shall establish the qualifying period for those candidates for delegate and delegate alternate positions which are to be elected in the primary and for any party officials to be elected in the primary and shall also establish the date on which state and county party executive committees shall certify to the Secretary of State or the superintendent, as the case may be, the names of any such candidates who are to be elected in the primary; provided, however, that such dates shall not be later than 60 days preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-521  (2011)

§ 21-2-521.  Primaries and elections which are subject to contest; persons who may bring contest
   The nomination of any person who is declared nominated at a primary as a candidate for any federal, state, county, or municipal office; the election of any person who is declared elected to any such office (except when otherwise prescribed by the federal Constitution or the Constitution of Georgia); the eligibility of any person declared eligible to seek any such nomination or office in a run-off primary or election; or the approval or disapproval of any question submitted to electors at an election may be contested by any person who was a candidate at such primary or election for such nomination or office, or by any aggrieved elector who was entitled to vote for such person or for or against such question.”

“O.C.G.A. § 21-2-522  (2011)

§ 21-2-522.  Grounds for contest
   A result of a primary or election may be contested on one or more of the following grounds:

   (1) Misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

   (2) When the defendant is ineligible for the nomination or office in dispute;

   (3) When illegal votes have been received or legal votes rejected at the polls sufficient to change or place in doubt the result;

   (4) For any error in counting the votes or declaring the result of the primary or election, if such error would change the result; or

   (5) For any other cause which shows that another was the person legally nominated, elected, or eligible to compete in a run-off primary or election.”

David Farrar filing:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/david-farrar-v-barack-obama-first.html
Attorney Michael Jablonski filing

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/12/obamas-private-attorney-files-motion-to.html

67 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Delegate, democratic convention, Democrats, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, First Amendment, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, Secretary of State, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

NC lawsuit challenges marriage licenses, North Carolina marriage laws require state license, Jeff Thigpen, Reverends Keeney, Peeples, Koenig

Posted on December 14, 2011 | 68 comments

NC lawsuit challenges marriage licenses, North Carolina marriage laws require state license, Jeff Thigpen, Reverends Keeney, Peeples, Koenig

The spirit of freedom is still alive in North Carolina.

From the Greensboro News Record, December 14, 2011.

“Suit challenges marriage licenses”

“Guilford County Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen and 10 other people filed a lawsuit last week that challenges a requirement that marrying couples in North Carolina obtain a state-issued license.

The complaint, filed in Guilford County Civil Superior Court on Dec. 8, names state Attorney General Roy Cooper as the defendant. The plaintiffs include three Greensboro ministers and seven heterosexual and homosexual residents from Greensboro, Winston-Salem and Mocksville.

They argue in the complaint that state general statutes violate the U.S. Constitution and the principle of separation of church and state by requiring marrying couples to seek marriage licenses, by requiring religious leaders to fill out and sign them, and by prohibiting religious leaders from solemnizing the marriage of same-sex couples.

The complaint comes about five months before North Carolinians vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that bans same-sex marriage. The referendum will occur during the May Republican primary.

The complaint reads, “In order (to) adequately and fully protect the personal liberty and religious freedom of citizens of North Carolina and the United States, there must be a de-coupling and disentanglement of the state from the personal and religious institution of marriage. The institution of marriage should be solely in the dominion of citizens and their religious and secular organizations, except that the state should be permitted to carry out prohibitions of marriage for infancy, insanity, bigamy or polygamy, and incest, and marriage as a result of fraud, duress, joke or mistake; and the state should be permitted to adjudicate rights relating to support, child custody, and property in connection with marriages and their dissolution.””

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/12/13/article/local_elected_official_joins_lawsuit_over_state_marriage_licensing_requir

From the print edition.

“The suit is not challenging the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, said Guilford County Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen and others in the lawsuit. Voters will decide that issue in next year’s primary.”

“”It’s not part of anybody else’s agenda,” said Norman Smith, a Greensboro attorney. “It’s part of the agenda of people in this suit who don’t like the state getting into people’s religious and personal affairs.”

“Thigpen said he joined the suit because of his concern about state -imposed obstacles that some people must overcome to get married. He acknowledged his involvement could risk his re-election in November.”

“Why would I want to do this?” asked Thigpen, whose office handles marriage licenses. “These issues have come to me, and I have the obligation to respond to them in a way that is reflective of what’s going on and be a leader in dealing with it.”

“What happens in that sanctuary is between me, the couple, those who are witnessing , and God, “Peeples said. “It has always struck me as very strange, if not contradictory, that I have to sign a legal document and act as an agent of the state. …What we are saying is let’s make a clean separation between those two acts.”

68 Comments

Posted in Attorney General, Attorneys, Citizen, Citizen News, CitizenWells, Civil Complaint, constitution, Courts, Government, Lawyers, NC, News, North Carolina, Religion, Religious freedom, voters

Tagged , , , , ,

Natural Born Citizen lies and misrepresentations, Congressional Research Service Propaganda, Founding fathers intent, Obama eligibility, Leo Donofrio response

Posted on December 1, 2011 | 53 comments

Natural Born Citizen lies and misrepresentations, Congressional Research Service Propaganda, Founding fathers intent, Obama eligibility, Leo Donofrio response

Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States, and is criminally occupying the White House and should immediately be arrested. Irrespective of any deficiencies in his birth certificate, Obama did not have 2 US citizen parents and is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Presidential eligibility from the US Constitution

“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Notice that being a citizen was not enough, unless you were so at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution. One must be a Natural Born Citizen. That requires 2 US citizen parents. The founding fathers understood that definition. One of the best examples I can think of this contextual knowledge is from the movie “A few good men.”

In 2008, John McCain was challenged on his eligibility. He immediately presented a legitimate certified copy of his original birth certificate. But since he was born abroad, the US Senate provided a resolution to clarify his status as a Natural Born Citizen.

“110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the
United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in
the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States,
as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country
outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

 Notice that emphasis was placed on the fact that McCain had 2 US citizen parents. Also note that Obama signed the resolution.

In 2008, numerous congressmen were contacted regarding Obama’s eligibility issues. It appeared at the time that they were all reading from the same scripted agenda. In 2010 we learned why members of congress responded with the same language.

From Citizen Wells November 8, 2010.

“Mario Apuzzo, attorney in Kerchner v Obama, first broke this story on November 5, 2010.

“Members of Congress Internal Memorandum — What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions – Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed. This was the spin that the Members of Congress were given to keep the American electorate at bay and confused in the debate about Obama’s eligibility issues all the while the Congress did nothing to investigate the matter in a congressional hearing like they did for similar concerns about John McCain.

We have obtained a copy of the talking points memorandum put out by a lawyer for the Congressional Research Service to the Members of Congress back in April 2009 as to what to tell their constituents when they write to the Members of Congress and ask questions about Obama’s eligibility. Now we know why all the answers coming back to constituents sounded like they were written by the same person and were full of the same obfuscations, omitted facts from history, and half truths & non-truths. This copy was obtained via the diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of “Tom Deacon” who obtained it from a Senator’s office. Now we know the talking points the DC insiders and politicians have been groomed with to feed to their constituents who have been asking questions about the eligibility issues. Thank you Tom.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/congress-internal-memo-obama-eligibility-what-to-tell-your-constituents-jack-maskell-memo-citizen-wells-open-thread-november-8-2010/

Chris Strunk gave us a heads up yesterday that Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service is at it again.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/

Leo Donofrio has responded to this latest attempt at obfuscation of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.
“Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.
 
Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause.  The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now.  But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.
The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty.  On pg. 48, Maskell states:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221
221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.
Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt.  Could I have missed this case?  Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen?  The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in.  I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.

The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens.  His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark.  His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned.  Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.

It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents.  But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.
Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen.  But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents.  The Supreme Court rejected that contention.  And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue.  I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.
When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork.  He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:
“[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”

These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion.  Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts.  The first is not in quotation marks:

of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is

And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:
“a natural born American citizen ….”
Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:
…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
But the Supreme Court never said that.  Here’s what they actually said:
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.”  Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).

This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.”

Read more:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/

53 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Election 2012, Election Law, Eligibility, Lawyers, Leo Donofrio, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Usurper, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

NH presidential election law, Natural born citizen clause, Statute changed in 2010, Orly Taitz ballot challenge, Obama 2007 signature

Posted on November 19, 2011 | 41 comments

NH presidential election law, Natural born citizen clause, Statute changed in 2010, Orly Taitz ballot challenge, Obama 2007 signature

I am presenting this article on NH presidential election laws for 3 reasons.

1. To remind everyone what Obama signed in 2007.

2. To reveal a change in the wording on the Declaration of intent.

3. To ask why this change in wording is not more widely reported.

I saved a copy of the Declaration of intent by September 18, 2009 from the following link:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LXIII-655.htm

“TITLE LXIII
ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 655
NOMINATIONS
Nominations by Primary
Section 655:17-b
    655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers. –
    I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president and vice-president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II. Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public.
    II. I, __________, declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of __________, county of __________, state of __________, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of __________ to be chosen at the general election to be held on the __________ day of __________; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.
Source. 1985, 121:3, eff. July 19, 1985.”

Using the same link today, I find the following version:

“TITLE LXIII
ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 655
NOMINATIONS
Nominations by Primary
Section 655:17-b
    655:17-b Declaration of Intent; Presidential Candidates Who File Nomination Papers. –
    I. Declarations of intent for each candidate for president who seeks nomination by nomination papers shall be in the form provided in paragraph II.Declarations of intent required by this section shall be filed with the secretary of state, signed by the candidate, and notarized by a notary public.
    II. I, __________, swear under penalties of perjury that I am qualified to be a candidate for president of the United States pursuant to article II, section 1, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” I further declare that I am domiciled in the city (or town or unincorporated place) of __________, county of __________, state of __________, and am a qualified voter therein; that I intend to be a candidate for the office of president to be chosen at the general election to be held on the __________ day of __________; and I intend to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43. I further declare that, if qualified as a candidate for said office, I shall not withdraw; and that, if elected, I shall be qualified for and shall assume the duties of said office.
Source. 1985, 121:3, eff. July 19, 1985. 2010, 19:1, eff. July 6, 2010; 50:3, eff. July 17, 2010.”

Here is the Decaration of intent that Obama signed in October of 2007.

The wording in the document Obama signed in 2007 matches the wording of the Declaration of Intent I saved from September 18, 2009. Obama in 2007 did not certify that he was a natural born citizen.

41 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2008, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Concord Monitor NH Obama ballot eligibility articles, Maddie Hanna, Obama birth certificate, Orly Taitz challenge, New Hampshire law violation?, Citizen Wells email

Posted on November 19, 2011 | 30 comments

Concord Monitor NH Obama ballot eligibility articles, Maddie Hanna, Obama birth certificate, Orly Taitz challenge, New Hampshire law violation?, Citizen Wells email

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Live Free or Die”…New Hampshire State Motto

First of all I would like to thank Maddie Hanna and the Concord Monitor for covering the Orly Taitz challenge of Obama’s eligibility to be on the New Hampshire ballot. It appears that an attempt was made to present both sides of the story. However, the incorrect, often repeated, mainstream media version of Obama’s birth certificate stories was presented. I sent Maddie Hanna the following email this morning.
“In your recent articles about the Obama eligibility ballot challenge you stated:
 
“The administration released Obama’s birth certificate from the state
of Hawaii in 2008. When that didn’t satisfy the skeptics, it posted a
long-form version online earlier this year.”
 
That is incorrect.
The document placed on the internet by some entities in 2008 is a COLB.
We have no proof that the image was legitimate. But given what a COLB represents, it does not matter.
Certification of Live Birth. Or as Lou Dobbs on CNN stated “A document that refers to another document.”
Per Hawaii law one did not have to be born in Hawaii to get one.
 
The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov this year is not proven by a legitimate chain of document.
Also, particulary damning is the following from the bottom of the image.
“I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file”
Since Obama could be born elsewhere and per HI law have birth records on file,
the word abstract immediately rules out the image as absolute proof of HI birth.
 
Perhaps the most damning information of all is what I have been presenting for years.
 
Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?
 
I hope that you want the truth.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please contact me.”

I would also like to point out that news sites outside of the state of NH revealed that apparently the NH Ballot Law Commission is in violation of NH law.

“CHAPTER 665
BALLOT LAW COMMISSION

General Provisions

665:1 Organization. I. There shall be a ballot law commission
consisting of 5 members. Two members shall be appointed by the speaker
of the house of representatives, one from each of the 2 major
political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the
most recent state general election. Two members shall be appointed by
the president of the senate, one from each of the 2 major political
parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most
recent state general election.”

http://www.sos.nh.gov/665-web2011.pdf

The Concord Monitor article:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293382/birther-bid-to-derail-obama-blocked

I anxiously await a response from Maddie Hanna and welcome any dialogue to arrive at the truth in any of these matters.

Wells

30 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Birthers, Board of Elections, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Hawaii, Lawsuits, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

NH Obama ballot challenge denied, New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission all Democrats?, Obama eligibility, NH law violated

Posted on November 19, 2011 | 24 comments

NH Obama ballot challenge denied, New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission all Democrats?, Obama eligibility, NH law violated

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Live Free or Die”…New Hampshire State Motto

From the Concord Monitor November 19, 2011.

“‘Birther’ bid to derail Obama blocked
Ballot Law Commission members called traitors”

“As state election officials yesterday rejected California lawyer
Orly Taitz’s argument to keep President Obama’s name off the New
Hampshire presidential ballot, supporters lining the hearing room in
the Legislative Office Building cried out in protest.

“Traitors!” shouted one woman. “Spineless traitors!”

“Saying a treasonous liar can go on our ballot?” yelled State Rep.
Harry Accornero, a Republican from Laconia. “You’re going to have to
face the citizens of Laconia. You better wear a mask.”

The spectacle before the state Ballot Law Commission began with a
presentation by Taitz, who came to Concord yesterday afternoon to
continue her years-long

demand for proof of Obama’s U.S. citizenship.

Taitz, a dentist who was born in the Soviet Union, is running as a
Republican for a seat in the California Senate and runs what she bills
as the “world’s leading Obama eligibility challenge website,” refuses
to accept the veracity of the birth certificates released by the White
House in response to questions circulating through chain emails and on
the internet about Obama’s birth.

The administration released Obama’s birth certificate from the state
of Hawaii in 2008. When that didn’t satisfy the skeptics, it posted a
long-form version online earlier this year.

But Taitz insists that document is fake: The computer file is layered
and could have been altered with the Adobe Illustrator program, she
said.

“A child can see this is a forgery,” she told the commission. “Why are
they refusing to show the public the original?”

She also claims Obama doesn’t have a valid Social Security number.
Included in the 85-page packet Taitz submitted to the commission is a
tax return with “a number that was never assigned to him,” Taitz said.
She said Obama is using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut
around 1977.

In conducting her research, Taitz said she also found several birth
dates associated with Obama in a national database. And she found
information that she said contradicts Obama’s claim about the length
of time he spent attending Columbia University, which claims the
president as a 1983 graduate.

“We have an individual where we don’t know who he is,” Taitz said. “We
need to know that the person who is at the helm of this country, who
is leading our military, whose finger is on the red button of nuclear
weapons, has proper identification.”

She told the commission members they would be responsible for “the
most egregious election fraud ever committed” if they didn’t take
Obama’s name off the ballot.

“This is bigger than Watergate. This is a hundred times bigger than
Watergate,” Taitz said. “Ladies and gentlemen, in your hands is
national security for the United States of America.”

But the commission wasn’t convinced.”

“”I want to say, the Constitution is what makes America great,”
Sullivan said, drawing applause from the room.

It was out of the commission’s purview, however. Senior Assistant
Attorney General James Boffetti told commission members they could
only consider whether Obama had filed his declaration of candidacy
form in accordance with state law and paid his $1,000 filing fee. Both
form and fee were properly submitted by Vice President Joe Biden on
Oct. 20, according to Assistant Secretary of State Karen Ladd.

The five members voted unanimously to keep Obama’s name on the ballot.

Their response to the testimony during the hearing angered many of
those in the room, including state representatives.

“Unbelievable,” fumed state Rep. Susan DeLemus, a Republican from
Rochester, walking around the room during a break in the hearing,
before the commission took its vote.

“Let’s just bury the Constitution now and have a funeral,” DeLemus
said. “It just makes me want to throw up.””

Read more:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293382/birther-bid-to-derail-obama-blocked

From Commenter Starla

Submitted on 2011/11/19 at 1:44 am

““NEW HAMPSHIRE ELCTIONS COMMITTEE RULES THEY DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION
IN CRIMINAL MATTERS”

Obama Release Your Records on 2:00 PM
Friday, November 18, 2011

“NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE RULES THEY DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION
IN CRIMINAL MATTERS: ACCEPTS OBAMA’S BALLOT ACCESS PAPERWORK FOR 2012;
COMMITTEE MEMBERS BOOED AND CAQLLED TRAITORS”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-hampshire-elections-committee-rules.html?showComment=1321679292167#c3169759953344384191

* * * *

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these
veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to
publish whatever I please on any subject.” – Elijah Parish
Lovejoy(1802-1837)

* * * *

Comments Under The Above Article:

Anonymous said…

“OH, YES, THANK GOD THEY WERE CALLED TRAITORS. THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED
WITH TREASON…..ALL OF THOSE NOT INVESTIGATING THE EVIDENCE WITHIN THAT
COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ARRESTED. WHERE ARE THE POLICE AND THE SHERIFFS?
THEY MUST ALL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR TREASONABLE ACTIONS.
PEOPLE JUST KEEP WRITING AND WRITING FOR WE MUST SAVE OUR COUNTRY FROM
ALL OF THESE TRAITORS. “IN GOD WE TRUST.”

November 18, 2011

* * * *

Anonymous said:

“If Orly is right about all 5 members being a Democrat, then she has a
solid appeals case for the NH Supreme Court. Here is part of the law:

http://www.sos.nh.gov/665-web2011.pdf

CHAPTER 665
BALLOT LAW COMMISSION

General Provisions

665:1 Organization. I. There shall be a ballot law commission
consisting of 5 members. Two members shall be appointed by the speaker
of the house of representatives, one from each of the 2 major
political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the
most recent state general election. Two members shall be appointed by
the president of the senate, one from each of the 2 major political
parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most
recent state general election.”

November 18, 2011″

* * * *

“NEW HAMPSHIRE ELCTIONS COMMITTEE RULES THEY DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION
IN CRIMINAL MATTERS”

Obama Release Your Records on 2:00 PM
Friday, November 18, 2011

“NEW HAMPSHIRE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE RULES THEY DON’T HAVE JURISDICTION
IN CRIMINAL MATTERS:   ACCEPTS OBAMA’S BALLOT ACCESS PAPERWORK FOR
2012; COMMITTEE MEMBERS BOOED AND CAQLLED TRAITORS”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-hampshire-elections-committee-rules.html?showComment=1321679292167#c3169759953344384191

* * * *

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these
veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to
publish whatever I please on any subject.” – Elijah Parish
Lovejoy(1802-1837)

* * * *

Comments Under The Above Article:

Anonymous said…

“OH, YES, THANK GOD THEY WERE CALLED TRAITORS. THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED
WITH TREASON…..ALL OF THOSE NOT INVESTIGATING THE EVIDENCE WITHIN
THAT COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ARRESTED. WHERE ARE THE POLICE AND THE
SHERIFFS? THEY MUST ALL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR TREASONABLE
ACTIONS. PEOPLE JUST KEEP WRITING AND WRITING FOR WE MUST SAVE OUR
COUNTRY FROM ALL OF THESE TRAITORS. “IN GOD WE TRUST.”

November 18, 2011

* * * *

Anonymous said:

“If Orly is right about all 5 members being a Democrat, then she has a
solid appeals case for the NH Supreme Court. Here is part of the law:

http://www.sos.nh.gov/665-web2011.pdf

CHAPTER 665
BALLOT LAW COMMISSION

General Provisions

665:1 Organization. I. There shall be a ballot law commission
consisting of 5 members. Two members shall be appointed by the speaker
of the house of representatives, one from each of the 2 major
political parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the
most recent state general election. Two members shall be appointed by
the president of the senate, one from each of the 2 major political
parties in the state based on votes cast for governor in the most
recent state general election.”

November 18, 2011″”

Submitted on 2011/11/19 at 1:14 am

““EXCLUSIVE: ORLY TAITZ REPORTS ON NEW HAMPSHIRE BALLOT COMMISSION HEARING”

“PEOPLE WERE SCREAMING, ‘TRAITORS!’”

By Sharon Rondeau
© 2011, The Post & Email
November 18, 2011

Excerpt:

“Everybody jumped to their feet. They were screaming and yelling and
saying, “Traitors! You’re traitors! You have no decency! You have no
honesty! You’re committing treason!” It was huge. Cameras were
rolling, and they had to call security. (Rep.) Harry Accornero started
yelling at to the chair of the committee and the corrupt attorney, and
the attorney, Brad E. Cook, said, “Representative Accornero, you are
out of order.” And Accornero said, “No, you are out of order; you are
committing treason. You have to face the people of the state of New
Hampshire, and you better not get out of the house without a mask!”

I’ve never seen anything like it. People were so mad that I thought,
“In another minute, they’re going to bring a rope and start hanging
them all.” Representative Carol Vita kept getting right in the face of
the assistant attorney general; she was yelling and screaming at him.

Taitz reported that no one was hurt as a result of the hearing, which
lasted about two hours in total. She reported that Rep. Accornero said
that members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives went to the
Speaker of the House, and a meeting is set for Tuesday when they will
decide what to do. “I’m going to write an emergency appeal to the
Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Members of the House are going to join
my other cases in Hawaii, the Ninth Circuit, and in the DC Circuit.”

“The level of corruption was unbelievable. We found out that all five
members of the committee are Democrats,” Taitz said. “As I was
presenting all of the evidence, people were listening and getting more
and more angry.”

——————

Editor’s Note: If Taitz’s contention that all five members of the
Ballot Law Commission are from one party is correct, it is an apparent
violation of law.””

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/11/18/exclusive-orly-taitz-reports-on-new-hampshire-ballot-commission-hearing/

24 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Birthers, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Lawsuits, Lawyers, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Politics, US Constitution, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

NH ballot challenge to Obama, Orly Taitz complaint, Obama eligibility questions, Four New Hampshire House members question birth certificate

Posted on November 18, 2011 | 76 comments

NH ballot challenge to Obama, Orly Taitz complaint, Obama eligibility questions, Four New Hampshire House members question birth certificate

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Live Free or Die”…New Hampshire State Motto

From the Concord Monitor November 18, 2011.

“‘Birther’ challenges Obama”
“Don’t pencil in a victory for President Obama in New Hampshire’s
Democratic primary just yet. Today, the incumbent president must
withstand a legal challenge that again questions his eligibility to
seek the country’s highest office.

At 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the legislative office building, the state’s
Ballot Law Commission is set to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz,
a California lawyer who has continued to question the validity of
Obama’s birth certificate and Social Security number since his 2008
election.

Backing her complaint, Taitz said, are four Republican members of the
New Hampshire House: Harry Accornero of Laconia, Larry Rappaport of
Colebrook, and Lucien and Carol Vita of Middleton.

“There’s sufficient controversy that I want it investigated,”
Rappaport, a Ron Paul supporter, said yesterday. “Every time this is
brought up . . . we get a lot of flak, but we’ve never gotten an
answer.””

“”I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I could take that
apart and see that it was fraudulent,” Rappaport said of the long-form
certificate.

Lucien Vita said the birth certificate issue “should have been put to
bed years ago” and also believes the documents released by Obama were
forged.

“Don’t believe anything you read and only half of what you see,” he said.

Vita considers himself a constitutionalist and both he and his wife
support Ron Paul, he said.

“I have doubts because of the delay in the time it actually took to
come out with a long-form birth certificate,” Vita said. “I don’t want
to go through another four years of the same tripe.””

“Taitz’s complaint also questions the validity of Obama’s Social
Security number, and she said the exhibits presented to the Ballot Law
Commission show “undeniable, irrefutable evidence that Barack Obama is
using a Social Security number that was never assigned to him.”

Read more:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293101/birther-challenges-obama?CSAuthResp=1321635127%3Akac5p0ac2a53k27d9iernpe2m5%3ACSUserId%7CCSGroupId%3Aapproved%3AC7BFB10B487EEBB060A53F45DE1EA54D&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1

76 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Birthers, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Dr. Orly Taitz, Election 2012, Election Boards, Election Law, Eligibility, Lawyers, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Belmont Abbey sues feds over Obama care provision, Birth control, Federal mandate forces religious institutions opposed to birth control to violate their beliefs or face penalties

Posted on November 18, 2011 | 25 comments

Belmont Abbey sues feds over Obama care provision, Birth control, Federal mandate forces religious institutions opposed to birth control to violate their beliefs or face penalties

Belmont Abbey, a Catholic college just west of Charlotte, NC is challenging ObamaCare over a provision that requires employer insurance plans to cover contraception and other birth control.

From the Charlotte Observer November 18, 2011.

“Belmont Abbey sues feds over birth control rule”

“Belmont Abbey College has filed a broad legal challenge to the part of President Barack Obama’s health care reforms that requires employer insurance plans to cover contraception and other birth control.

The Catholic college in Gaston County says the federal mandate forces religious institutions opposed to birth control to violate their beliefs or face penalties. The rule goes into effect next August.

The school has sued a number of federal agencies. The defendants include Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Keith Maley, an HHS spokesman, said the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit, public-interest law firm.

The debate began in 2007, when a group of Belmont Abbey faculty members challenged the school’s refusal to include prescription contraceptives in its health care plan.

In 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that Belmont Abbey was violating federal law.

The school’s recent suit focuses on Obama’s 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which requires preventative health coverage on procedures like mammograms and cervical screenings, along with contraception and sterilizations.

A religious organization can be exempted if its spiritual values are central to its mission and if it primarily employs or serves “people who share its religious tenets.””

Read more:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/11/18/2784162/belmont-abbey-sues-feds-over-birth.html

One of my uncles attended Belmont Abbey College on a baseball scholarship many years ago. I went to a performance there several years ago. It is a beautiful small school.

Go get em Belmont Abbey. If I can be of assistance, let me know.

Wells

Belmont Abbey website.

http://www.bac.edu/

25 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Government, Health Insurance, Healthcare bill, Lawsuits, Lawyers, NC, News, North Carolina, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, ObamaCare, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , ,

Obama eligibility, Dumbing down Constitution for Obama’s sake?, World Net Daily, Constitution amended by fiat

Posted on November 7, 2011 | 92 comments

Obama eligibility, Dumbing down Constitution for Obama’s sake?, World Net Daily, Constitution amended by fiat

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”…Benjamin Franklin

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

From Joseph Farah of World Net Daily November 06, 2011.

“
•”He’s clearly a citizen of the United States.”
•”We’ve seen his birth certificate.”
•”Without question, Barack Obama was born in the U.S.”
•”Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and that settles it.”
•”It’s nuttiness and counterproductive to question the president’s eligibility for office.”
These are some of the phrases we hear from Barack Obama’s ardent defenders – people like Anderson Cooper and nearly all his colleagues in the news media.
We hear the same drivel from the Republican establishment – people like Karl Rove, who insist the important principle of constitutional integrity should not be a “distraction” in efforts to defeat Obama at the polls.
 
But what happens when the national debate is systematically stifled by these gatekeepers is that we allow Barack Obama’s clear lack of basic qualifications for office dumb down the rule of law, set a new lower standard of constitutional eligibility and redefine what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court has ruled on its meaning?

In effect, we are allowing the Constitution to be amended by fiat – all because there is no political or legal mechanism in place to ensure candidates for president are constitutionally fit to serve.

Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” as required by Section 2, Article 1, of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with where he was born. It has to do with what Barack Obama has consistently represented to the American people about his birth – that his father was a citizen of Kenya. This is a disqualifier for office because that fact means he is not a “natural born citizen,” the offspring of American citizens. It wouldn’t matter if he were born in Kansas on the Fourth of July or on the dark side of the moon.

As we mercifully approach the end of the Obama regime, it’s time to get serious about the bigger issue of presidential eligibility for the future of this country. If we allow the Obama eligibility standard to become the de facto law of the land, we lose one more important component of constitutional integrity – and we’re on our way to being a nation adrift from any legal moorings.

When I first set out on the lonely course to make this a national issue, against all odds, I predicted that it would not go away. I predicted it would be a major issue in the 2012 presidential election. I also predicted it would not be settled in any court in America. In other words, I was three for three in my predictions.

Today, there remains a total political disconnect between the American people, who understand Obama is an illegitimate pretender to the highest office in the land, and the elite media and political establishment – both Republican and Democrat – which simply doesn’t care what the Constitution requires.

But the Constitution and its clear intent and purpose are much bigger and more important to the future of America than is Barack Obama.”

“It’s not a choice between Democrat and Republican. It’s a choice between right and wrong.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=364953

Well said and amen Mr. Farah.

Thanks to commenter GORDO

92 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2012, Eligibility, Government, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Obama birth certificate, Natural born citizen debate, Justia Supreme Court decisions altered, Conspiracies Lies and Justiagate

Posted on October 29, 2011 | 51 comments

Obama birth certificate, Natural born citizen debate, Justia Supreme Court decisions altered, Conspiracies Lies and Justiagate

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“The following statement at the bottom of the image placed on WhiteHouse.com, disqualifies the image as proof of being Obama’s original birth certificate: ‘or abstract.'”…Citizen Wells

“Just because something is a Conspiracy Theory does not mean it’s not true”

I did not take the Obama birth certifcate controversy too seriously until Philip J Berg and others filed lawsuits in 2008 and Obama with the help of private and USDOJ attorneys avoided presenting his records. This became a conspiracy theory, a bit of grey area subject to debate. However the following statement of Obama’s use of USDOJ attorneys in the question, which I adopted several years ago, is not a theory. It is a fact.

Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

This is a good, simple, honest question. The American people deserve an answer.

I would like to add another statement.

The following statement at the bottom of the image placed on WhiteHouse.com, disqualifies the image as proof of being Obama’s original birth certificate: ‘or abstract.’

From American Thinker October 29, 2011.

“Conspiracies, Lies, and Justiagate”

“I have never believed in conspiracies — at least, not in the vast kind that Hillary felt the right wing deployed against her philandering husband.  More often, it seems the cover-up of truth, not the circulation of manufactured untruths, lies at the root of such conspiratorial ideas.
Nor do I believe in the kinds of conspiracies seen in movies, with a “spooky dude” in a tower plotting a global takeover while ordering minions to carry out his evil intentions.  Though I sometimes get carried away, especially after listening to Glenn Beck, my imagination does have its bounds.
But I do believe in the remarkable potential of a seemingly unguided force, either good or evil, consisting of great numbers of individuals doing what alone may appear insignificant — yet, when combined with the work of others moving in the same direction, all this work put together has the potential to become something very powerful.  The history of our great nation is a testament to the notion of the formidable forces of good.”

“Bearing these concepts in mind, I’ve been puzzled when others refer to the “birthers” as believing in a conspiracy, while plots of planting birth announcements in local newspapers or the cover-up of a teenage girl’s 1961 trip to Kenya did seem a little over the top.  When Tim Adams, a former Hawaii elections clerk, came forward and asserted that he and others in his office knew in 2008 that Obama had no birth certificate, I wondered: is it possible that others in Hawaii were also aware of this information, yet somehow resolved to keep it secret?  Recall also Governor Abercrombie’s failed attempts to produce the certificate.  Was he “in” on it, too?
Finally this past spring, on the heels of Donald Trump’s noisy demands and with a flourish befitting the finale of a dramatic three-year-long performance, the president presented a copy of what was purported to be his original long-form certificate.  Immediately, multiple experts dissected the “layered” digital image, and arguments continue to circulate the internet as to its authenticity.
I must admit that I do find the “birther” controversy fascinating, and I have kept up with the phenomenon since its inception.  A complete retelling of the whole thing, including the sometimes outlandish subplots (like Sheriff Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse”), combined with the history of the Constitution’s qualification phrase and the technicalities of law, would make for a book thicker than War and Peace and likely completely unbelievable, even if labeled fiction.
Yet even if we assume that the released certificate is legitimate, something still doesn’t feel quite right.  Do all of these sensational news tidbits seem just a little too contrived, making them and the timing of their release appear rather…conspiratorial?  Does a real conspiracy indeed exist, and if so, has it been clouded by all of the birth certificate hype?”

“Attorney Leo Donofrio was the first to assert the claim that Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him and also had the first eligibility case, in a long line of others, rejected for a full hearing by the Supreme Court.  In his ongoing quest to prove that the founding fathers never intended to allow the commander-in-chief to have divided allegiance at birth, Donofrio recently uncovered a strange situation he calls “Justiagate,” documented in an article by Dianna Cotter.
Cotter describes Justia as an “influential legal research website,” and “since Google most often returns Justia.com’s version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia’s version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere’s forums and comments.”  She detailed Donofrio’s alarming discovery that at least 25 Supreme Court decisions on Justia’s database had been subjected to some sort of tampering.
It just so happens that all of the affected cases are relevant to the “natural born” citizen debate, all of the changes relate to the especially important decision of Minor v. Happersett (which contains a definition of “natural born citizen”), and all of the noted revisions occurred during the period from mid-2008 to when Donofrio’s discoveries were published.
Were the anomalies simply innocent programming errors, as Justia’s Tim Stanley asserts, or were they created intentionally, with or without direction from somewhere above?
And while “Justiagate” has been gaining in publicity in the blogosphere, preceded by the previous weeks’ renewed and related interest in the laws granting birthright citizenship surrounding the al-Awlaki killing, new headlines are screaming — and guess what about:
The birth certificate.

Again.  And again.  And again.
Conspiracy?

Pass the popcorn.”

Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/conspiracies_lies_and_justiagate.html

 

Thanks to commenter Pat 1789.

51 Comments

Posted in Attorneys, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Birthers, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Eligibility, Hawaii, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,