The United States Supreme Court will not halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results as requested by Philip J. Berg. Berg wanted the count stopped until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama proved his eligibility to run for the office with valid documentation.
From endiana.com:
Missing is a valid birth certificate proving Obama is a natural-born US citizen.
But that decision doesn’t let Obama off the hook.
A clerk for Justice David Souter said the defendants “are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari” by December 1.
Hawaii’s governor’s office said it has a valid birth certificate proving Obama was a natural-born citizen. The office refused to release it.
The question persists: If the birth certificate exists, why does Obama not produce it and end the controversy?
Meanwhile, images of Obama supporters at Obama’s election night rally in Chicago were seen on Fox News wearing red shirt bearing the cycle and hammer communist symbol.
From WorldNetDaily:
As WND reported, Berg brought his claims to the Supreme Court after a federal judge dismissed his lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because he possibly was born in Kenya.
The judge concluded Berg lacks standing to bring the action.
The 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order from Judge R. Barclay Surrick said ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Instead, Surrick said Congress could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.
“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”
In a statement today, Berg said he was told by a clerk for Souter that his application for an injunction to stay the election was denied. But he also said the defendants “are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari” by Dec. 1.
The questions over Obama’s eligibility first got traction among Internet bloggers and later were heightened when several campaigns were launched to determine whether a “certificate of live birth” posted on the Internet by the Obama campaign was valid.
The issue gained more attention when Berg told radio talk show host Michael Savage he had an admission from Obama’s grandmather that she was at his birth – in Kenya.
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right blog. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States
– the most powerful man in the entire world – is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”
WND senior investigative reporter Jerome Corsi traveled both to Kenya and Hawaii to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth.
But his discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn’t ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor’s office in Hawaii said he had a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin. Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii.
Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born.
But a video posted on YouTube features Obama’s Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya:
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Berg demanded that Obama provide documentation to the court to verify that the candidate was born in Hawaii, as Obama contends, and not in Kenya, as Berg believes.
Related posts:
- Supreme Court won’t review Obama’s eligibility to serve Chicago Tribune Tim Jones UPDATE: The Supreme Court has turned...
- Berg appeals to Supreme Court in case challenging Obama’s citizenship Philip Berg has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to...
- Philip Berg filed in Supreme Court Yesterday for an Injunction to Stay Presidential Election Pending Writ of Certiorari regarding Obama who is “NOT” qualified to be President of the United States (Press Release - 10/30/08 - Contact information and pdf of...
- Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court on Grounds he is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency Birth Certificate Found in Kenya. Citizen of Kenya and Indonesia....
- Obama was born in Hawaii This is a lengthy, but quality comment from smrstrauss. I...
on Nov 6th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
24 potential Electors say they’re filing suit demanding evidence Obama eligibility
Electoral College Electors swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Voting for a presidential candidate, faced with compelling evidence that the candidate is not eligible to be president, would be a severe violation of constitutional law. The US Constitution rules. 24 potential Electors have stated that they were filing suit demanding evidence of Obama’s eligibility.
Article: http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/2008-presidential-election-obama-indonesian-obama-stole-nomination-obama-attempts-to-steal-election-us-constitution-electoral-college-electors-chaos-anarchy-electors-must-uphold-constitution/
=======================
Take Action and Contact The Electoral College Electors for your state:
I spoke with someone at their office who told me that the list of Electors will be posted near the end of November 2008. Go to the website of the U.S. Electoral College:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/certificates.html
click on Certificates of Ascertainment which contains the names of the appointed electors and the 2008 Presidential Election Certificates for EACH STATE. Some have contact information and some do not. Contact those that offer information and communicate to them that:
Electoral College Electors swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Voting for a presidential candidate, Barack Obama, while faced with compelling evidence that the candidate is not eligible to be president, would be a severe violation of constitutional law. The US Constitution rules
on Nov 6th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Thanks for the info and links Sparkling!
on Nov 7th, 2008 at 2:05 am
[...] Supreme Court demands Obama eligibility validation documents The United States Supreme Court will not halt the tabulation of the 2008 presidential election results as requested by Philip J. Berg. Berg wanted the count stopped… [...]
on Nov 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Sparkling,
Excellent advise, but I would advise you to also contact your respective Secretary of State and ask THEM what THEY relied upon to certify Obama to be placed on the ballot in the first place.
Each state REQUIRES in some way or another that presidential candidates be approved and/or certified to be placed on the ballot.
What is the authority each SOS relied on, particularly in respect to being a natural born citizen.
on Nov 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
First, the certification of live birth is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is not necessary for him to show a birth certificate because the certification is a legal document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It is like a bank book, which proved that you had money in the bank. The certification has now been accepted by at least one court.
Then, IF Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.
The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.
I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama’s grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii. In any case, it is not evidence. She could be referring to Barak Obama senior, Obama’s father, who certainly was born in Kenya.
The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii. They have seen his birth certificate in his file. They are thus confirming the certification. And, they have no reason to lie.
The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd.
In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:
“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html
In Virginia, which was just ruled on Monday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.
Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)
(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)
Quotes:
The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.
The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.
2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.
The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.
3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.
4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.
However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.
The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.
5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.
The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”
I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”
Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”
on Nov 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
smrstrauss:
“First, the certification of live birth is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.”
Not as I understand it, from reading threads like this one. According to a retired professional in the ‘Homeland security’ field, knowledgeable in particular about Hawaiian law, a Certification of Live Birth - different from a Certificate of Live Birth - is not proof that the child was actually born in Hawaii. So the door, according to that factor, is still open in this matter. And the second ’suspicious’ fact is that the announcement by the DOH director last Friday ONLY verified that they hold Obama’s “original birth certificate” - but the reported announcement didn’t say anything about the COLB on the Obama website being a true copy OF that original bc. So - at that point in the matter - a reasonable person had a right to ask: What’s going on here?
The Virginia court case that you cite adds a piece of info that has never been reported on as yet: with the judge saying that that court had received an affidavit from the Hawaiian DOH confirming that the COLB appearing on the Obama website is a true facsimile of the info on the original bc. If that is true, and if the statement from the Hawaiian DOH to that court is indeed true - why in blazes haven’t they said that before? And saved this whole brouhaha from happening??
Something still isn’t right about this matter, because of the above question. I’ll wait until the original bc - with the attending doctor’s signature, and the sworn hospital site - is produced, before I’ll buy into what looks on the surface very much like a con job.
‘I’m from Missouri - show me.’
on Nov 14th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Who delivered “Obama” the baby in Hawaii??? A doctor, midwife, or a Bird of some type…..If he was born in a hospital as his supporters state….then there must have been professional health care providers that assisted the birth…Who are they???
Why haven’t they been produced???
My guess….there are none because he was not born in the U.S.
on Nov 16th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Thank-you, Sparkling for the information and the links. And thank-you, Stan, for your informed rebuttal of smrstrauss’ argument.
I believe in democracy. If Obama is indeed a US citizen, why wouldn’t he just prove it and settle the disputes and lawsuits? If it were me, I certainly would. Though it was previously none of our (as common American citizens) business where he was born, it became so when he ran for President of the Unites States. Do we not have the right to know that the President-elect is in fact eligible to have run in the first place? Do we not have the right to see our Constitution upheld completely, not just partially?
It seems to me that some people are very emotional over this issue, and speak out through their emotions. I’d just like the facts, thanks!
on Nov 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Will we know the truth before Obama is sworen in as the President.
on Nov 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Robert: Probably not, if ever. . . .
on Nov 18th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
No joke. Part of me is seriously doubting our democracy. What exactly is the “truth”, and who determines it?
It would be easier for the government to not admit that Obama is ineligable and let things play out as they may, than be ‘honest’ and let the country’s faith in government fall.
Things like who would be president, etc would cause a stir. Ugh. The whole thing makes me sick!
on Nov 18th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.
In a Constitutional Republic each individual has equal rights.
In a Democracy the majority rule.
Judge R. Barclay Surrick said ” ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office”.
Judge R. Barclay Surrick should be disbarred for his position which clearly contradicts the Constitution of The United States of America.
Every member of the Electorial College has taken an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and therefore would be commiting an act of treason if they neglect their swawn duty.
If Obama is found to be not eligible by fraudulantly covering up his citizenship by birth, dual citizenship or any other reason then those individuals who have introduced him to the security secreats of this country have also committed an act of treason.
Talk about a Constitutional Crisis!!!
on Nov 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
That’s exactly right, Joe!
on Nov 19th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Not quite “exactly right”, Dan. Judge Surrick was/is just following judicial precedent. That’s his job: to rule on the basis of the law. And in this case, he ruled within the terms of the law (as documented well by a lawyer poster on an Andy Martin thread, regarding his lawsuit in Hawaii). It is up to the plaintiff to appeal, not to the judge. Berg has decided to take the issue to the Supreme Court: that is where (aside from Congress, now heavily Democratic) such an overturn of precedent would ultimately have to go in any event. Unfortunately, the Supremes have taken it upon themselves to invent the law in the past, and bugger the Constitution; so that’s not the ideal arbiter. But that’s where we have gotten, when we chose - trusting those we elected to look after our interests, and to remain wedded to the REAL law of the land, ie, the Constitution - to let the Supremes get away with amending that contract according to their majoritarian socio-political whim. (It my well cut for you in one instance, when you start playing that game; but it may well cut against you in another.)
Now the Electoral College is another matter, and that’s where I think Joe is right: those delegates could be pressed to demand that they are given CERTAIN EVIDENCE that Obama was truly born in Hawaii, not have to buy a pig in a poke for that answer, as we the public have had to do up til now. Just because Obama has gotten this far in his political career doesn’t mean his position is legal for the SPECIFIC terms of running for the presidency, ie, that the person needs to be a natural born citizen; it’s not enough just to be a naturalized citizen.
And in point of fact, that factor could well have done McCain in as well. (He was born in a hospital in Panama, not on a US military base there - which has its own legal unclarity, regarding this issue.) Which may be why the McCain camp chose not to make a big-deal issue of the matter vis-a-vis Obama’s birthplace.
And i agree, motheroftwo: it would be horrendous to let this matter go, as ‘just a detail’. Not only because ‘just a detail’ could let someone like The Terminator in to that office (which could possibly do in the constitutional republic big time). But because, if we don’t live by the rule of the law, we will have opened ourselves - further - to the rule of men. And that always ends up disastrously. Think Adolf ‘I am the law’ Hitler. Think Caesar, in another empiric era.
Thanks, no thanks. The United States has a higher destiny to aspire to than that sort of scenario. And all that stands in the way of that higher destiny, and a takeover by scheming parties with an agenda, is the law. So we need to preserve it, as best we can. And that means accepting situations such as the rejection by a Judge Surrick of a case that we might want to be aired. That airing will have to take place in another venue.
So: Citizens, to your starting places, in a race to head off the Electoral College at the pass, without firm confirmation of Obama’s eligibility. The future of the Republic depends on it.
on Nov 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
FOI request for Obama’s birth certificate –found on the internet at http://www.DailyJeff.com-has all 50 SOS emails-1 stop emailing!
FOI REQUEST TO ALL SOS FOR OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
We need to find out what the SOS of the various States know about Obama’s birth certificate and qualifications to be president. If you have time, please send/fax/email the following FOI (freedom of information letter) to some or all of the SOS bureau of elections. After you get a response please post on http://www.obamacrimes.com, http://www.freerepublic.com, http://www.peoplespassions.org, http://americamustknow.com,www.rallycongress.com.
1. The address , fax number and email address for the Bureau of elections for the states are at http://www.eac.gov.
2. I like the faxes because they will respond quicker to them. Print off your generic FOI request and past/tape the next name over the top and fax it off. See emails listed below for all 50 SOS.Cut and paste to send all 50 at one time. Sit back and wait for answers.
November 21, 2008
TO: BUREAU OF ELECTIONS
Bureau of Elections, California
1500 11th St, 5th Floor FAX: 916-653-5634
Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: elections@sos.ca.gov
ATTN: Freedom of Information Officer
REF: Freedom of Information Act Request/Privacy Act/ Open Meeting Act, Common Law
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Please send the following documents for examining and photocopying:
1. Documents that show that Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States , including but not limited to:
a. Original birth certificate
b. Proof that he is a natural born United States citizen
c. Proof that he was born in Kenya
AS you know , the FOIA provides that if a portions of a document are exempt from release, the remainder must be segregated and disclosed. Therefore, I would like to examine all nonexempt portions of the records that I requested and I ask that you justify and deletions by citing specific exemptions of the FOIA
This is a continuing request into the future for 6 months.
If this is not the proper department, please forward to the Election Bureau/SOS.
I promise to pay reasonable search and duplication fees in connection with this request. (Note: The FOIA permit some fee reduction or waivers).
Please notify me if the charges will exceed ($20.00), so that I can decide whether to authorize a higher amount.
Thank you for your assistance, I look forward to receiving your reply within five business days, as required by law.
Sincerely,
Robert Johnson
123 Main St
Anywhere , CA
Cc: Clerk of the US Supreme Court
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
FAX: (209) 479-3021
WARNING
Should any person try to cover up this request or documents herein, BE YOU HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE: You may be indicted under USC Title 18 Sec. 3. 4, 2381, 2382, 2383, and 2384. Also, 4 U.S.C. & 101, federal law requires all state employees and officers take an oath of office and records kept of such administered oath.
Jeannie.price@sos.alabama.gov,governor@alaska.gov,governorsoffice@asg-gov.net,
sosadmin@azsos.gov,sos@sosmail.state.ar.us,constituentaffairs@sos.ca.gov,
secretary@state.co.us ,susan.bysiewicz@po.state.ct.us ,lorilee.harrison@state.de.us ,
Stephanie.scott@dc.gov,secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us,sosweb@sos.state.ga.us,
elections@aloha.net,sosinfo@sos.idaho.gov,JWhite@ilos.net,
constituentservices@sos.in.gov,sos@sos.state.ia.us,kssos@kssos.org,sos.secretary@ky.gov,
bobby.jindal@la.gov,sos.office@maine.gov,bmorris@sos.state.md.us,
agoweb@state.ma.us,secretary@michigan.gov,secretary.state@state.mn.us,
administrator@sos.state.ms.us,sosmain@sos.mo.gov,sos@mt.gov,receptionist@sos.ne.gov,
sosmail@sos.nv.gov,elections@sos.state.nh.us,feedback@sos.state.nj.us,
nmsos@state.nm.us,info@dos.state.ny.us,emarshal@sosnc.com,sos@nd.gov,
tworley@sos.state.oh.us,governor@gov.state.ok.us,Oregon.sos@state.or.us,
pcortes@state.pa.us,correo@fortaleza.gobierno.pr,comments@sec.state.ri.us,
rdaggerhart@sos.sc.gov,sdsos@state.sd.us,phil.bredesen@state.tn.us,
secretary@sos.state.tx.us,mshurtleff@utah.gov,dmarkowitz@sec.state.vt.us,
justice@usvi.org,soc@governor.virginia.gov,mail@secstate.wa.gov,
wvsos@wvsos.com,wigov@gov.state.wi.us,secofstate@state.wy.us,
on Nov 24th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
what is the matter with people all the rest of us have to toe the mark when it comes to law especially . ever try to get out of a ticket on the street or in court . Who do they think they are ?
If the people want to erase the whole LAW and start over with a clean slate ,it is lawful by vote. or what we did to king george ,what? what standing of berg .I to am a citizen and i will have your job and deport you. nothing in the government works unless we as citizens make them, so if you don’t like the work get out of the kitchen !!!!!!!!!!!! what say ? if Abamanation serves then it is arnolds turn. is filing for the office much less for SENATOR a felony crime or higher ?????? where is his elementary school records ? etc. swear in to be a citizen at all for his office and do we have to go back and correct everthing ,like for goldschmit of OREGON. what regulator were bought off even in 1961. how much did it cost ?
seasoned combat marine viet veteran
on Nov 24th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Thank you for your service rick…..I also served in the military and I am a viet vetern….
Oh by the way…..To my knowledge the media never mentioned that Obama never served in the military of the United States….He did serve his own cravings for drugs and I believe that was mentioned by the media…..and just think…..he is going to become comander and chief……wow….while men and women were serving our country to keep everyone free….Obama was finding himself,,,,that is a discrace…..\I hope christmas comes early on Dec. 1st when Obama answers the request from the supreme court……and, oh yea, the electorial college upholds their oath to uphold the constitution of the U.S.
on Nov 28th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
[...] probably already know that Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg filed a suit in U.S. District Court several months back contending that Senator Obama is not a “natural-born” [...]
on Nov 28th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
We don’t have standing? What the justices fail to remember is that the “citizens” they are talking about are their bosses. We pay their salaries. If the boss asks their worker to make sure the customers they are serving meet the government laws (ex. old enough to buy beer) then that is what they need to do. If not they will be fired.
Fired is exactly what we need to do with these arrogant do nothings.
on Nov 28th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Has anyone checked the passport records of Stnley Ann Dunham, for August 1961? This would let us know where his mother was when he was born.
on Nov 28th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I have two residences. When I went to get my Tennessee drivers license I asked my husband to send me my birth certificate. He mistakenly sent me a copy that I had made. There were no alterations. When I went to get my license they did NOT accept it. I had to have him overnight me the original.
Why does the ruling class not have to play by the rules?
on Dec 9th, 2008 at 6:05 am
[...] Electors have stated that they were filing suit demanding evidence of Obama
on Dec 11th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Shall we allow Obama to do an Arthur?
———————————————–
Who is that one person …. …. … who finally compelled Barack Obama to show legally acceptable proof and evidence that he is a natural born citizen as he alleged in his application form for his candidacy for the position of President of the United States? Or do you simply take Obama at his word? Is this what the rule of law is about?
You can be part of American history.
Obama birth FAQ
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth
View and answers and questions there..
on Dec 23rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Below are two official emails that dispute the public version of Obama’s Birth and his mother’s marriage to BHO Sr.
From: pubrec@u.washington.edu [mailto:pubrec@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008
Subject: Re: Stanley “Ann” Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registration
Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham (BHO II’s mom) was enrolled at the University of Washington for:
Autumn 1961
Winter 1962
Spring 1962
The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.
Madolyne Lawson
Office of Public Records
206-543-9180
From: Stuart Lau [mailto:stuartl@hawaii.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008
Subject: Re: Inquiry
The University of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Stanley Ann Dunham:
Dates of attendance:
Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960)
Spring 1963 - Summer 1966
Fall 1972 - Fall 1974
Summer 1976
Spring 1978
Fall 1984 - Summer 1992
Degrees awarded:
BA - Mathematics, Summer 1967 (August 6, 1967)
MA - Anthropology, Fall 1983 (December 18, 1983)
PhD - Anthropology, Summer 1992 (August 9, 1992)
Sincerely, Stuart Lau
****************************************
Stuart Lau
University Registrar
Office of Admissions and Records
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Ph: (808) 956-8010
****************************************
Commentary on University Emails:
For the BHO II Hawaiian Aug 4 1961 COLB to be accurate the following improbable events needed to occur:
1 month after starting classes, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack’s mom, at age 17, got pregnant by the only black African man on the entire chain of Hawaiian islands.
2 months after getting pregnant, she drops out of college.
3 months after getting pregnant, she marries BHO Sr.
10 months after her first day at the U of HI, she delivers BHO II and immediately leaves her parents, her new husband, and her home, to fly alone with a newborn 2800 miles to Seattle to start college at the U of W.
Stanley Ann Dunham does not return to Hawaii until AFTER BHO Sr left the islands for Harvard.
This is an implausible series of events made even more nefarious because Obama II in his 2 bio books never mentions his mom left Hawaii when she was married to BHO Sr, nor does he mention she was in Washington State during this time.
Barack’s sister was born in Indonesia, and has a COLB from Hawaii like Obama II. She is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the USA as required by the Constitution to become president…and Obama probably isn’t either.