Further Indictment of Pelosi’s “Certification” of Barry Soetoro Barack Hussein Obama

Count Us Out ^ | 11/29/08 | J. Wolsey Riggs

[Deepest End]

I’m so frustrated I could pull my hair out.

I know it is very frustrating, but you probably should keep your hair.

We have GOT TO GET A JUDGE to hear this and a damn attorney to stress this point in court.

I nominate fightinJAG!

This is a serious matter though and I have to believe that ultimately SCOTUS will do the right thing. I know that may be naive, but I have no hair left to pull out and would like to keep what little sanity I have left.

[fightinJAG]

I have a load of doctor jokes, if those suit ya!

[Deepest End]

I’m and engineer turned business owner (with a big BHO target on my back).

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[genefromjersey]

Hello ! A new one !!

So far, we have the following : Vincent Jappi,Satin Doll (a little gender uncertainty there ?),helpful researcher,Jay 1949,deepest end,steady john (Don’t even ask about that one !),ron polarik (natch),and now fightin JAG.

Q. How many sock puppets does it take to overfill the drawer,Doctor C ?

[nufsed]

In the response I got from the Sec of State's legal council in California. She is saying it was the parties' responsibility to check the candidates for qualifications.

In other words: Howard Dean. Ouch.

BTW my e-mail exchange is with Alan Keyes FWIW.

[Smokeyblue]

The same Ms. Fowler who sharply attacked Sarah Palin, saying “John McCain had chosen a running mate whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

My, my what a charming, upstanding woman. I’m sure we can take her word she checked B. Hussein’s birth certificate. (Barf)

[RGPII]

That’ll be 600 million down the drain!

[jamese777]

What’s interesting is the court’s misinformation (and judges do NOT know everything. I have heard them over and over tell people if they plead nolo then their insurance won’t go up which is FALSE) that just because Hawaii HAS a birth certificate doesn’t mean he WAS BORN THERE. Seems judges aren’t aware of the odd rule in Hawaii offering birth certificates for children up to 1 year of age that were not born in Hawaii up until 1972.

We have GOT TO GET A JUDGE to hear this and a damn attorney to stress this point in court.

I’m so frustrated I could pull my hair out.

---

I think that someone is going to have to show a judge evidence that Obama wasn’t born in Honolulu, like an alternate birth certificate from Mobassa, Kenya or Indonesia. Thus far no one has produced such evidence or even a sworn affidavit to that effect.
Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth says that he was born in the city of Honolulu, in the County of Homolulu, on the Island of Oahu at 7:24 P.M. on August 4, 1961.
What Obama has on his side as well is both Honolulu Sunday newspapers carried his birth notice on the Sunday following August 4th. His Certificate of Live Birth lists Honolulu as place of birth and his Certificate of Live Birth was registered on August 7th, 1961. If a child was not born in Hawaii and has delayed birth registration, it says that on the Certification of Live Birth.
Hawaii Revised Statutes (338-13(b]) require that if there is writing in the “evidence of delayed filing or alteration” space on the long form Certificate of Live Birth, that would also appear on the short form Certificate of Live Birth.

[Theodore R.]

The problem that we have on this is that the framers failed to define “natural born citizen” for the understanding of the underlings who would follow them.

[Theodore R.]

What Obama has on his side as well is both Honolulu Sunday newspapers carried his birth notice on the Sunday following August 4th.

Hence, he would have had to have been born in Honolulu for the papers there to have the birth notice the following Sunday. Aug. 4 was a Friday. Aug. 6 was a Sunday. There is no way a Kenyan birth could have been put in the Honolulu paper two days later and passed off as Hawaiian, right? So what is Oprah's Choice hiding?

[RGPII]

Hence, he would have had to have been born in Honolulu for the papers there to have the birth notice the following Sunday. Aug. 4 was a Friday. Aug. 6 was a Sunday. There is no way a Kenyan birth could have been put in the Honolulu paper two days later and passed off as Hawaiian, right? So what is Oprah's Choice hiding?

Well that's a real cliffhanger and I've read most of the threads on this topic. Any ideas? Those dates you insert certainly are ones I had not seen stated in that way before. Thanks.

[RGPII]

I'll save you the time, it must be about being illegitimate or not, a different father, something along these lines.

"It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma..."- Winston Churchill (but most of us may say we saw it in JFK.

[jamese777]

“Hence, he would have had to have been born in Honolulu for the papers there to have the birth notice the following Sunday. Aug. 4 was a Friday. Aug. 6 was a Sunday. There is no way a Kenyan birth could have been put in the Honolulu paper two days later and passed off as Hawaiian, right? So what is Oprah’s Choice hiding?”

---

Don’t take my explanation of Obama’s position as an endoresment, just playing Devil’s advocate here. He thinks that he’s hiding nothing. As soon as the issue arose, he put a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on the web for the whole wide world to see and nobody has yet proven in a court of law that his Short Form Certificate is a fake.
In Hawaii, if you request a copy of your birth certificate, the short form COLB is what they send you and at the bottom of every COLB it says “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in all court proceedings.”
Obama’s COLB says the fact of birth took place in Honolulu.
His opposition is going to have to prove otherwise to a judge, a jury or Justices.

[patriot08]

In the response I got from the Sec of State’s legal council in California. She is saying it was the parties’ responsibility to check the candidates for qualifications.
In other words: Howard Dean. Ouch.

BTW my e-mail exchange is with Alan Keyes FWIW.
____________________

And Howard Dean suspiciously suddendly withdraws.

[nufsed]

It seems obvious to me that a Sec of State or someone outside the party has to qualify the candidates. Should be done when they announce for the primary in the state.

[PghBaldy]

FNC said it is customary for the new party leader (Obama) to name a new chairman. Not sure if this is true.

[fightinJAG]

This is not all that unusual in constitutional law. It points out, however, that it is very necessary for the Supreme Court to make a statement on this status and how it is defined.

There are many things that impact on it. For example, the Court would have to look at the common law and see what insight it gives into “natural born citizen.” There are other expression of the Founders’ intent in putting the qualification in the Constitution.

Likewise, there are statutes definining citizenship, some of which have changed over time, that also pertain either directly or because they provide insight into what was NOT considered being “natural born.”

IOW, this is exactly the type of question the Supreme Court exists to answer. And the framers probably didn’t define “natural born citizen” because it seemed obvious to them what it meant. That indicates that there likely is evidence of a known and accepted definition that is discoverable by the SCOTUS.

As I said, so long as reasonable experts can disagree on what constitutes a “natural born citizen,” we won’t actually know what the law is on the matter until the Supreme Court tells us what it is.

[The Mayor]

Mark

[fightinJAG]

So the concensus is appearing that:

(1) Absent some specific statutory duty (as, arguably, exists in NJ and is a stated ground in the Donofrio case), the Secretaries of State have no duty to verify that the candidates are eligible to serve; and,

(2) The only entity that even gives lipservice to verifying a candidate's, or President-elect's, eligibility is THAT CANDIDATE'S POLITICAL PARTY.

This is simply constitutionally gross.

There is no way in God's Green Earth that the framers or anyone else who loves this country or our Constitution would find it acceptable for an individual to be seated as President of the United States based, possibly, on a series of rubberstamp "verifications" made by political hacks who:

(1) Not only were *not experts in the issues raised by various fact patterns or in the law and its application to those facts,*

(2) But who had *every motivation and personal interest, good and bad, known to man* at stake in their decision on whether a particular candidate was eligible to serve as president; and,

(3) Then there be NO WAY TO CHALLENGE the party's compliance or process? Balderdash.

This would be like saying a racehorse can't be awarded the crown in the Kentucky Derby if it was given performance drugs.

But the only entity that (supposedly) determines if the racehorse was given performance drugs, and thus is not eligible to be declared the winner of the Derby, is the racehorse owners.

And the owners don't even have a defined procedure they must follow to make that determination, nor do they have any expertise in determining whether the racehorse was given performance drugs.

Moreover, the racehorse owners have every motivation and personal interest known to man at stake in their horse winning the race, regardless if he's had performance drugs or not.

Yet they sign off that the racehorse is eligible to compete and win and that's not challengeable? By anyone?

Is this any way to run a Constitution?