Posted on 04/07/2010 12:44:21 PM PDT by jbjd
I may not be able to explain why Barack Obama attracted support for his crusade to the White House from tens of millions of citizens notwithstanding he refused to disclose to these same sovereigns documentary evidence he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.
But I can explain that by refusing to disclose to the citizens of Texas under the Texas Open Records Act the documentary basis for Certifying to state election officials Mr. Obama was the eligible Presidential candidate of the Texas Democratic Party; under Texas laws, TDP Chair Boyd Richie admitted he lied about the candidate’s eligibility for President leaving him with no other choice but to declare Barack Obama is ineligible for the job....
P.S. In what could perhaps be characterized as a case of cosmic justice, the Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas who signed the opinion in Bradford v. Vento finding silence equals misrepresentation was none other than The Honorable Greg Abbott, presently the Attorney General of Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at jbjd.wordpress.com ...
Yes, but, my fellow citizens have the right to foist upon me, a President I determine is incompetent to do the job. I just hate it when he is also Constitutionally ineligible for the job, too!
He IS the President! (Obviously, people reading my work here are not as familiar with my blog as people reading my work, there.)
The people of Texas only elected Electors in November 2008. The Electors elected BO in December; according to the Constitutional description of their jobs, they could have elected HRC; or JMc; or...
From Wikipedia:
“Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors. While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of the state’s right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, as well as to remove electors who refuse to pledge. Once the elector has voted, their vote can only be changed in states such as Michigan and Minnesota, where votes other than those pledged are rendered invalid. However, in all twenty-four states, a faithless elector may only be punished after he or she votes. The Supreme Court has ruled that, as electors are chosen via state elections, they act as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court.”
Also, the state of Hawaii says that the short form COLB is the official birth certificate of that state. It is recognized by the federal government for passport and Social Security card purposes and the short form contains all the information required to establish eligibility to be president or vice president under Article 2 Section 1: date of birth, and place of birth.
Any law requiring ONLY a long form certificate in states that no longer issue a long form certificate is likely to be ruled unconstitutional.
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
Since the names of the electors do not appear on the Texas Ballot, (they do or did in some states), how would someone who wanted to vote for Obama get elected anyway?
...
Unless a "nonviable" candidate was put on the ballot, with the understanding that his/her electors would vote for Obama?
That would presumable be legal, since Texas does not punish "faithless" electors. The party generally selects the actual electors. In a very real sense, we are voting for the party, and technically are voting for the electors, not the candidate whose name appears on the ballot.
Are you saying Obama showed his short-form to the Texas SOS?? Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Just because a valid form might have valid purposes doesn’t make Obama’s particular form valid. It’s like saying a real dollar bill proves that Obama’s counterfeit dollar bill is real. Sorry that don’t cut it.
ping
Wikipedia? I use http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/certificates.html And, given that citizens have demonstrated we know how to enact laws governing the conduct of Electors; this means, we know how to enact laws requiring them to vet their choice for President as to Constitutional eligibility BEFORE their election in December. (Plus, we need to rescind those laws requiring Electors to vote for the Party nominee, notwithstanding no ‘faithless’ Elector has ever been penalized under this law for a violation.
If we make criminal the conduct of providing false documents to election officials to establish eligibility to appear on the ballot - assuming we already enacted laws requiring all candidates on the ballot to be eligible for the office - then, we should see fewer people submitting false documents.
“In a very real sense, we are voting for the party, and technically are voting for the electors, not the candidate whose name appears on the ballot.”
Yes, exactly! And this is the part of the Constitution the political parties (which are not mentioned in the document) would have us forget. Because these Electors are loyalists of the Party! (Try reading NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (1 and 2) on my blog. This narrative touches on the highlights of the election process as they played out in the 2008 election cycle.)
Boyd Richie submitted a document to election officials swearing BO was eligible. Pursuant to requests under the Texas Open Records law, he had a duty to substantiate why. He deliberately did not. Under Texas law, this means, he lied when he swore BO was eligible.
Under Texas law, only the names of eligible candidates may appear on the ballot. Boyd Richie swore BO was eligible but no documentary evidence in the public record could establish such eligibility. Citizens submitted requests under the Texas Open Records law so as to obtain the documents used by the TDP in their Certification. They ignored these requests. Citizens reported to the AG, the crime of election fraud has been committed in our state. Investigate.
Your rationale as to BO’s eligibility has absolutely nothing to do with these facts. (Besides, whatever basis is used for eligibility must have existed BEFORE Mr. Richie swore to the eligibility on August 27, 2008.)
That statement by Fukino admits that Obama’s original birth certificate does not verify his place of birth. Her statement about Obama being a ‘natural born American citizen’ is an outright falsehood.
That statement by Fukino admits that Obama’s original birth certificate does not verify his place of birth. Her statement about Obama being a ‘natural born American citizen’ is an outright falsehood.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
What part of “...verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii...” in her statement don’t you understand?
Dr. Fukino could have been (and still can be) sued or indicted for making false statements and a subpoena could be issued for Obama’s vault copy, long form Certification of Live Birth in connection with a lawsuit or criminal complaint against Dr. Fukino. Thus far, no one has taken either of those steps.
Only two courts have actually ruled on Obama’s status as a natural born citizen and those two courts ruled that Obama qualifies as natural born under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution. If some other court will rule differently at some point in the future remains to be seen. Several days ago, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in the lawsuit that found Obama (and McCain) are both Natural Born Citizens.
Boyd Richie submitted a document to election officials swearing BO was eligible. Pursuant to requests under the Texas Open Records law, he had a duty to substantiate why. He deliberately did not. Under Texas law, this means, he lied when he swore BO was eligible.
Under Texas law, only the names of eligible candidates may appear on the ballot. Boyd Richie swore BO was eligible but no documentary evidence in the public record could establish such eligibility. Citizens submitted requests under the Texas Open Records law so as to obtain the documents used by the TDP in their Certification. They ignored these requests. Citizens reported to the AG, the crime of election fraud has been committed in our state. Investigate.
Your rationale as to BO’s eligibility has absolutely nothing to do with these facts. (Besides, whatever basis is used for eligibility must have existed BEFORE Mr. Richie swore to the eligibility on August 27, 2008.)
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
Since the state of Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth records it doesn’t seem likely to me that Mr. Ritchie will have any problems with the law in Texas.
Mr. Ritchie’s answer to the question is “a copy of the Barack Hussein Obama II’s Certification of Live Birth issued by the state of Hawaii.”
There's no lie in what I posted.
What part of “...verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii...” in her statement don’t you understand?
The issue isn't whether she made a claim about birth, but upon what document she is making the claim. She is NOT making this claim on the basis of the original birth certificate, nor by default a legitimate COLB, which is supposed to have prima facie value in court. IOW, if the original birth certificate (or the COLB) proved Obama was born in Hawaii, it is the ONLY document she needs to cite. She only needs to cite supplementary documentation if the original certificate is not sufficient to prove place of birth. The original birth certificate was sufficient for her statement on October 2008, but not sufficient in July 2009. Fukino did state a falsehood by declaring that these documents verified that Obama was a 'natural born American citizen.' There is no vital record in Hawaii that declares ANYONE to be a natural born American citizen.' Game. Set. Match.
Several days ago, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in the lawsuit that found Obama (and McCain) are both Natural Born Citizens.
What lawsuit said this??
You keep making a mistaken assumption. Fukino’s statement doesn’t verify any birth records ... unless she produces these records and shows that they are indeed birth records. She might be referring to political affadavits, correspondence to her office, e-mail or even newspaper articles. There’s no evidence she’s referring to a birth record in support of her undocumented claim that she saw records verifying Obama was born in Hawaii. We do know she was not referencing the original birth certificate.
Silly goose! The law does not say, jamese777 gets to substitute his reason for believing BO is a NBC; the law requires that when citizens asked Boyd Richie on what basis he Certified BO was a NBC; he had 10 (ten) days to respond with that information. Besides, WH Counsel Bob Bauer, then Counsel to OFA and the DNC Services Corporation, thought the best evidence BO was a NBC was his - BO’s - word to federal Judge Robertson, he - BO - had publicly produced his Hawaiian birth certificate. I seldom question anyone’s motives but, in this case, I must assume you are joking by suggesting we accept your proffer of ‘evidence’ as to BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, that is, an affidavit from HI DoH officials; but reject the evidence proffered to the federal court by WH Counsel Bob Bauer, on behalf of his client, Defendant BO.
You keep making a mistaken assumption. Fukino’s statement doesn’t verify any birth records ... unless she produces these records and shows that they are indeed birth records. She might be referring to political affadavits, correspondence to her office, e-mail or even newspaper articles. There’s no evidence she’s referring to a birth record in support of her undocumented claim that she saw records verifying Obama was born in Hawaii. We do know she was not referencing the original birth certificate.
You are dead wrong on what Dr. Fukino actually said yet again: “...the original vital records...” in her statement IS verification by the state official charged by statute with making such verifications.
A “political affidavit,” “correspondance,” “email” or a “newspaper article” is NOT an “original Vital Record.” Hawaii laws explicitly spell out EXACTLY what are to be considered as vital records. The primary categories are birth records, death records, adoption records and marriage and divorce records.
Dr. Fukino is backed up in her verification by the further corroboration of Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Records for the state of Hawaii who also has reviewed the original Obama vital records. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.
Dr. Fukino has already released the Index Data record for Barack Hussein Obama II. It verifies that the state of Hawaii has a BIRTH RECORD for a male child named Barack Hussein Obama II. You can see it for yourself here:
http://www.hi5deposit.com/health/vital-records/obama.html
That information is further corroborated by the two birth announcements for a male child born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama on August 4, 1961 which appeared in the Honolulu Star-Bulliten and the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13, 1961 and August 14, 1961.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
Those announcements came from the Health Department’s statistics and not from family or friends.
The point is that those trying to disqualify Obama at this late date have a very high legal mountain to climb. Obama is under no obligation to prove his eligibility, his opponents have to prove him to be ineligible: “presumption of innocence.”
At the bottom of every Hawaii Certification of Live Birth it clearly states: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”
Silly goose! The law does not say, jamese777 gets to substitute his reason for believing BO is a NBC; the law requires that when citizens asked Boyd Richie on what basis he Certified BO was a NBC; he had 10 (ten) days to respond with that information. Besides, WH Counsel Bob Bauer, then Counsel to OFA and the DNC Services Corporation, thought the best evidence BO was a NBC was his - BO’s - word to federal Judge Robertson, he - BO - had publicly produced his Hawaiian birth certificate. I seldom question anyone’s motives but, in this case, I must assume you are joking by suggesting we accept your proffer of ‘evidence’ as to BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, that is, an affidavit from HI DoH officials; but reject the evidence proffered to the federal court by WH Counsel Bob Bauer, on behalf of his client, Defendant BO.
Obama could have been born on the White House lawn.
HOWEVER -
Obama admits that Obama Sr is his father.
His father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. He was a British citizen (since Kenya was ruled by UK).
Therefore, Obama has dual-citzenship which renders him NOT a NATURAL born citizen and therefore, ineligible for the Presidency according to the Consitution.
Game Set Match
No court has ruled that one’s parents have any bearing on a born-citizen’s status as being Natural Born. The only case to try to apply that tactic with Obama was the case of Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels. The original trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen under the Constitution. Just last week the Indiana Supreme Court refused to take the Ankeny case on appeal.
Vice President Cheney would have never certified Obama’s electoral college votes if he was not eligibile and Chief Justice Roberts wouldn’t have sworn him in.
Obama’s dual citizenship under the United Kingdom expired when Kenya gained independence when Obama was 2 years old and his Kenyan citizenship expired when he was 23 years old.
Kenya does not accept dual citizenship for adults so he stopped being a Kenyan citizen at age 21 but Kenya provides a two year window to make up one’s mind about which citizenship they want to retain. Obama would have had to make a decision at that time, Kenya or the US. He made no such decision and therefore he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship then.
Obama is the 7th US president to be born with foreigners for parents. The others were Herbert Hoover who had a Canadian-born mother; Woodrow Wilson’s mother was English; Chester Arthur and James Buchanan both had Irish fathers; Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England; and both of Andrew Jackson’s parents were born in Ireland.
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.
