Yeah...using TWO (2) sets of documents signed by Nancy Polosi and notarized as true.
Here they are...both with the same spelling mistake at the end of the second line.
Nancy caught out:
Posted on 09/22/2013 1:06:51 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
FEC only does money. And when questions arose regarding foreign campaign contributions for Obama the FEC refused to investigate because they said the winner gets to choose his battles. IOW, as long as it appears you’ve won you’ve got a free ticket. We have NOBODY looking out for whether laws and rules are being broken.
But it is the Secretary of State in each state which determines who can be on their ballot. Most states say that only eligible candidates can run for the office they seek.
In the case of AL SOS BEth Chapman, she received a certified-mail letter from Larry Klayman explaining that HI state registrar Alvin Onaka had been asked point-blank to verify Obama’s birth facts and would not, which means that those facts are not claimed on a legally-valid BC. Because Onaka did say that the facts requested to be verified WERE claimed on the record they have, the only reason to refuse to verify them is because the record they have is not legally valid. Without a legally valid record, there is no way that Antonio Villagairosa and Alice Travis Germond could LAWFULLY swear on the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination that Obama is Constitutionally qualified for the position of POTUS. Nobody can know that without first getting a judicial ruling on the probative value of that non-valid record, because without a probative record there are no legally-established birth facts.
IOW, Chapman was notified, in advance of the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot, that the HI state registrar had effectively confirmed that Obama has no legally-valid HI birth record so his eligibility could not be known without a legal investigation. She knew that the DNC OCON was fraudulent. A person who has that knowledge has a LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY, by virtue of her oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, to raise the alarm - just as surely as if she knew a masked bandit was breaking into the White House to steal everything there. Failure to respond makes her an ACCOMPLICE to the crime.
The Congressional Research Service put out a paper to the members of Congress basically saying that it is up to the states to determine who goes on their ballot. If the AL Supreme Court rules that it is nobody’s business if the SOS ignores screaming red flags and legal challenges in order to place a likely-ineligible candidate on the ballot, then the system itself has said that the country has NO LEGAL PROTECTION against a usurper. None. There is NOBODY who can be required to safeguard the Constitution.
BEnghazi was terrible. A lie was knowingly passed off as an explanation so that nobody would/could investigate what really happened. We’d all like to know who knew what, and when. Well..... every SOS in this country had advance warning that a guy who has no legal documentation of eligibility was trying to enter our White House. If the courts say it is nobody’s business - ever - then they may as well go spit on the graves of the Benghazi victims too, because they’re saying NONE OF THIS - NOTHING THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DO - is any of our business, and there is nothing we can do when they screw us all in full sight of everyone.
If this doesn’t matter, then nothing matters. It’s really that simple. If we have no way to MAKE our elected officials obey the laws and keep their oaths, then we may as well not have any laws or oaths. Period. Are you ready to go there?
Who, then, IS supposed to determine whether a Secretary of State properly performed her legally-required tasks?I am by no means a legal expert, but doesn't the Constitution specify that the presidential electors are ultimately responsible for determining the elected presidential ticket's candidates' eligibility status?
I would think each state could make their own preliminary determination to find a potential candidate ineligible to be included on their ballot, so that the candidate would then have to bring suit to the SCOTUS to try to force inclusion. I also think every registered voter in a state should automatically have fast track standing to challenge the eligibility of any candidate for whom they may vote (as long as an essentially identical suit had not already been brought). This should be the means by which a citizen should be able to challenge and correct a partisan or non-performing SoS.
The eligibility horse is long out of the barn, but for what it's worth, I believe aka obama to be a criminal identity fraud and an illegitimate, treasonous anti-American usurper who by rights should be arrested, tried and put to death for high treason per the rule of law (pardons should not apply in such cases). If this were to happen it would go a long way to restoring some much needed, righteous fear in the hearts of the rest of the mostly criminal pols infesting the beltway.
In hindsight, the founders made a big mistake in not writing strict term limits into the Constitution (which is why we have so many corrupt, cowardly enablers in DC).
Depends on WHY he didn’t register. If he didn’t register because he was still an Indonesian citizen as an adult, (just as he was as a child, as indicated by his school registration and his mother’s passport application), then he would have had to naturalize in order to even be a US citizen right now. And the legal question is whether one who is currently a NATURALIZED US citizen is eligible to be President.
Also, I don’t think a US citizen is eligible to be a federal employee of ANY kind if they haven’t registered with the Selective Service.
The courts have denied standing to state electors. It’s “not their business”.
According to the system, the only person who is harmed by an ineligible person on the ballot is the person who would have become President if the ineligible one hadn’t been on the ballot. Never mind that nobody can know that unless an election is actually conducted without them on the ballot...
It’s the “crystal ball” method of practicing law. In Iran and other sharia-controlled areas they call it “judge’s knowledge”. It’s just another way of saying rule by men, not by laws.
That’s really what is at stake with this issue and every other lawless act by this illegal regime. Until somebody actually rules that it IS our business when our government engages in criminal behavior, we are ruled by men, not by laws, and there are no guarantees of any kind.
I don’t think a US citizen is eligible to be a federal employee of ANY kind if they haven’t registered with the Selective Service.Clearly, by law, this applies to standard federal employees, but some have questioned whether elected federal politicians are technically included as employees. To me the answer (yes, of course) is as obvious as the paychecks they receive from the people they serve.
But I think we should take this further and restrict all voting and political office eligibility at the federal level to only those who have either properly registered for military service OR have actually honorably served in the military (yes, I do understand that this would presently disqualify most women from voting and running for elected office at the national level).
The trouble with that is that actually being in the military right now pretty much means that you have to either pledge to obey an enemy of the US (if you’re not an officer) or have to make an oath that you have no way of keeping (the officer’s oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic). I could not counsel my kids to join the military as it stands right now, because either of these realities would violate conscience. I feel for those who are stuck in the military right now, not having realized what it meant when they signed on. Those who sign on now are putting themselves in an impossible situation, and it’s got to leave huge scars on their conscience and on their honor. I hate having to say that, but it’s the way I see it right now.
I think it would be damaging if the only people from this generation who could vote are the ones who compromised their honor by either vowing obedience to a tyrant or making an oath they know they can never keep.
I love and respect our military people and I hate saying this stuff. I hate that the American voters allowed the vote to be close enough that a usurper could steal the White House and put our military people in such an impossible mess. There are no good answers for those who are in the military right now, and I hate it.
I agree. So does Mark Levin who explains how this can be fixed in his book The Liberty Amendments on page 19.
Laws are for the common folk.
Since our phones are trapped and emails read, and cameras are all around us, and laws only apply to the people, isn’t it about time that we admit we live in a tyranny.
The trouble with that is that actually being in the military right now pretty much means that you have to either pledge to obey an enemy of the US (if you’re not an officer) or have to make an oath that you have no way of keeping (the officer’s oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic).Your point is hard to argue with, but I guess I was making the implicit assumption that the present situation is the exception rather than the rule and that long term policy should not be based on a (hopefully) short term anomaly. My prior post's comments are based on a traditional, generally patriotic military that only suffers the occasional, unavoidable pockets of corruption and human weakness.
I’ve been mourning the loss of my country for a while now. We ARE living in tyranny.
HI state registrar Alvin Onaka had been asked point-blank to verify Obama’s birth facts and would not[.]
This is a peculiar assertion. The key birth fact and question as to eligibility (as everyone knows) is "Was BHO, II born in Hawaii?" (That is the key fact since the other two criteria for eligibility - being 35 years of age and having resided in the U.S. for 14 years - have never been at issue.). As to that key birth fact Dr. Onaka verifies point-blank."
“[I] verify the following:
1. A birth certificate is on file with the Depatment of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Now to most any reader that pretty much affirms in about as simple and direct fashion possible that per the HI vital records BHO, II was born in Hawaii. Assuming that Beth Chapman knew of this verification by Hawaii of the key birth fact, wouldn't that suffice for her to conclude Obama was eligible?
If it ousts Obama, ping me.
Until then, don’t hold your breath or you will be out long before Obama is.
It isn’t going to happen. The House certified the electors — twice. The House was the final authority.
Also, I don’t think a US citizen is eligible to be a federal employee of ANY kind if they haven’t registered with the Selective Service.
***************************
I joined the US Navy Air Reserve early in my Sr. year of HS, at age 17, with a contract that required me to go on active duty one year later. I became 18 about two months before active duty, but I still had to go to the local Selective Service Board. Showed them my Navy I.D. and was dismissed. Probably no registration for me on file now.
I later went through testing and FBI background checks (including interviews with my childhood neighbors) to become a US Customs agent and was selected, only to be shot down by Nixon cutting hiring of government personnel the night before I was to be sworn in. ...Later got a Top Secret clearance to work at a Defense contractor.
Not sure if all that makes sense, but my attempted point was to say that the SS registration may not be a big deal to many, although required by law.
BTW, Butterdezillion... I enjoy your postings which tend to present factual data rather than just snarky comments.
The word “indicating” only means that is what is claimed on the record. The only thing that Onaka actually VERIFIES there is the existence of a birth record which claims a Hawaii birth. That would be true even if the BC claiming it is not valid, so that verification statement says nothing about the validity of the record or the truth of those claims.
And when you look at Bennett’s entire request - including the actual APPLICATION FORM - you realize that the BC they have CAN’T be valid because if it was, Onaka would have had to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, WAS born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama, since those are the facts requested to be verified
Any claim made on a legally valid record is legally presumed to be true and MUST be verified (certifying that is the way the event really happened) when a qualified requestor submits it for verification. Onaka would not verify the truth of ANY fact submitted on the application form.
Nor would he verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.” Later, when KS SOS Kris Kobach specifically asked him to verify that the information contained in the White House image is IDENTICAL to the information contained in the record on file, Onaka would not verify that either. The INFORMATION on the White House image “matches” but is not identical.
All this was explained to Chapman. In fact, you can see the letter that Klayman sent to Chapman, at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf It shows the applicable statutes and documents.
When AZ SOS Bennett was asked why Onaka didn’t verify the birth date he said he assumed it was a mistake. He assumed that the certification he received was not accurate. He allowed Obama on the ballot based on the assumption that Onaka really MEANT to say something other than what he really said. He didn’t ask for clarification. Without any evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity (accuracy of the record given to him), he presumed that the certification he received was wrong.
Is that really how our legal system works in the USA? We ask point-blank and when the answer given under oath doesn’t match what we think it should be we assume - without evidence of any kind - that we know better than the custodian of the record, testifying under oath?
Is that how you think it should be? Do you want the AL Supreme Court to say that’s a fine way of doing legal business here in the USA?
I can see where it wouldn’t have to be a big deal for somebody who was already enlisted. You obviously weren’t trying to hide from the Selective Service requirement. Did the military cross-check with Selective Service and when it was seen that you weren’t registered you had to go before the board to make sure everything was cool?
BTW, thank you for your service. My brother-in-law was a Navy officer/pilot. Went into the reserves in order to finish out his 20 years after he didn’t make one of the later cuts and flew commercial instead. He spent last year in Bahrain. His son had the background check for a security clearance; my bet is they would not have allowed him anywhere near classified information - much less the nuclear football - if they had found him palling around with terrorists as an adult and forging vital records.
Yeah...using TWO (2) sets of documents signed by Nancy Polosi and notarized as true.
Here they are...both with the same spelling mistake at the end of the second line.
Nancy caught out:
This Alabama eligibility challenge is unique in that the plaintiffs are Republicans, the defendant is also a Republican and every member of the Alabama Supreme Court is a Republican. Barack Obama is not a party to this civil action.
The only input from Democrats in this appeal is an amicus brief submitted by the Alabama Democratic Party in support of the defendant, the Republican Secretary of State of Alabama.
However if the plaintiffs should prevail, the upside is that the Secretary of State in Alabama would then have to verify Obama’s eligibility but the downside is that Mitt Romney already won Alabama’s electoral votes.
To directly impact Obama, this process would need to be replicated in states that gave their electoral votes to Obama’s 332 electors total to take him down below the 270 elector threshold that is needed for election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.