We are still waiting for your proof that Dr. Fukino’s statements about 0bama's citizenship were used by every single judge involved in 0bama lawsuits. C'mon it's been a couple weeks and you can't even find one of them?
Posted on 03/01/2011 6:03:23 PM PST by Red Steel
JEFFERSON CITY — To be on the ballot for president in Missouri, candidates would have to prove they are citizens, according to a bill heard today in the House Elections Committee.
Freshman Rep. Lyle Rowland, R-Cedar Creek, is sponsoring the bill, which is co-sponsored by 15 of his GOP colleagues including House Speaker Pro-Tem Shane Schoeller of Willard.
“At the federal level, there is no one checking the qualifications,” Rowland said. “Even though it is in the Constitution, no one is checking those references.”
Witnesses who testified in favor of the bill made it clear the bill is aimed at President Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii.
“It does close an important loophole,” said Mitch Hubbard of Fulton, who was the Republican nominee for Missouri secretary of state in 2008. “Our military needs to know that their commander in chief is qualified. We have officers in the military who question whether their commander in chief is eligible” to be president.
Obama has a Kenyan father and an American mother and was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. But before his election and since, numerous websites and a few lawsuits have questioned his truthfulness and the validity of documents issued by Hawaii that show his date and place of birth. The U.S. Constitution requires that presidents be at least 35 years old and born in the United States.
According to a survey released Feb. 15 by the North Carolina firm Public Policy Polling, 51 percent of likely Republican primary voters believe Obama was not born in the United States, while only 28 percent believe he was.
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected all attempts to bring a case challenging Obama’s citizenship, most recently in November when it refused to hear a case brought by an Ohio man.
The bill would require anyone seeking a spot on the Missouri presidential primary ballot and anyone nominated by a national party for the general election to prove their identity and citizenship.
Rep. Joe Fallert, D-Ste. Genevieve, asked Rowland how many past candidates would not have met the requirement. “I have no way of knowing that,” he replied.
“If nobody has ever been disqualified under federal law, why do we have to double-check?” Fallert asked. “It is like a solution looking for a problem.”
After the hearing, Rowland said he is not sure Obama is legally qualified to be president.
“I don’t know, but I would like to know,” Rowland said. “I would like to see the records.”
And Darin Chappell, who described himself to the committee as a political science instructor at Missouri State University, said after the hearing that he would need to personally see the official documents to be convinced Obama is qualified.
Chappell said in an interview that he is not currently working for MSU and that he is hired on a per-course basis to teach there. “I have seen no evidence to suggest” Obama “would not be qualified. There has been no evidence submitted either way. I don’t have any way of being able to know one way or the other,” he said.
Committee Chairman Rep. Tony Dugger, R-Hartville, said he intended to push the bill to the House floor, perhaps as part of a bill changing the date of Missouri’s presidential primary. Dugger’s bill changing the primary date to a month later so Missouri’s national convention delegates would be seated was heard right before Rowland’s measure.
The committee did not vote on either bill.
Just sent this to the author of the article:
Hi. In your article you said, “But before his election and since, numerous websites and a few lawsuits have questioned his truthfulness and the validity of documents issued by Hawaii that show his date and place of birth.”
That statement doesn’t seem to acknowledge what is in the rest of the article - namely, that nobody has seen “documents issued by Hawaii that show his date and place of birth.”
The Hawaii Department of Health has indirectly confirmed that what Obama posted on his website could not have been from their office, since Obama paid to amend his BC in 2006 and anything they print out has to note that amendment but what Obama has posted doesn’t note the amendment. Because Obama’s BC has been amended it is not legally valid, according to HRS 338-17. IOW, the HDOH has indirectly confirmed that they have no LEGALLY VALID birth certificate for Obama. No Hawaii official has ever claimed to have seen a legally valid birth certificate for Obama.
And in fact, Obama’s friend HI Governor Neil Abercrombie made a big stir when he said he would find the birth certificate and present it publicly in order to refute the “birthers”. But when a Star-Advertiser reporter asked him how his search for the BC was going he said the investigation showed there was something “actually written down” in the State Archive. Birth certificates are not kept in the State Archive; they are kept at the Vital Records Office. The only vital records allowed by the retention schedule to be stored at the State Archive are Certificates of Hawaiian Birth that are at least 75 years old, and registrations of foreign birth. Abercrombie told his friend Mike Evans that he had searched the 2 hospitals looking for a birth certificate for Obama and found nothing; the only reason to look in EITHER the hospitals OR the State Archive is if there wasn’t anything in the Vital Records Office. Abercrombie told Evans there is no proof of a Hawaii birth for Obama.
And Tim Adams has signed an affidavit saying his supervisor at the Hawaii Elections Office told him it was common knowledge that Obama had no birth certificate.in Hawaii.
So we have 3 Hawaii officials who have said that Hawaii doesn’t even HAVE a legally valid birth record for Obama, and that what Obama posted is definitely not from Hawaii’s vital records office.
These are very, very pertinent facts, and I would appreciate it if you would correct the misleading language from the quote in the first paragraph of this e-mail and add the clarifying information.
Rep Joe Fallert would do well to know another fact, regarding his comment that it’s “like a solution looking for a problem”. Roger Calero - who is not even a US citizen, but a greencard holder born in Nicaragua - was placed on the Presidential ballot of several states including New Jersey, where the SOS is required to verify Presidential eligibility. When Leo Donofrio sued the SOS for putting Calero on the ballot the court ruled that he had no standing - IOW, it was none of his business. It was NOBODY’s business that somebody who is not even a US citizen (much less a “natural born citizen”) got on a ballot even though the SOS was required to verify eligibility.
IOW, we KNOW that ineligible candidates have made it onto the ballot.
Furthermore, he needs to be informed that it is not the federal government who implements Presidential elections. The Constitution only gives that job/authority to the States. The STATES have the responsibility of deciding how their Presidential electors are chosen - including who those electors can or can’t vote for, and on what basis that decision is made. The States cannot violate the requirements of the Constitution (like the NJ SOS did, ahem!), but they are the ones who are authorized to implement the Presidential requirements. So of course nobody has ever been disqualified under federal law; there IS no federal law, and if this Rep doesn’t even know that much then he is so uninformed about the basic facts of the eligibility situation that he needs an education.
A story that gives the basic facts about the eligibility issue would be very, very helpful in light of the apparent unawareness of even the most basic facts regarding the process or why there is a need for a STATE law. I encourage you to write a follow-up story laying out the basic facts.
I am willing to help steer you toward those facts or sources for those facts if you would like help. Feel free to e-mail me any time.
Nellie
FUBO TROLL
Just a little clarification on this - a LOT of people DO NOT realize the significance of the 14 years of residency within the United States ...
In the times of the Founding Fathers, one was NOT considered a citizen [in his own right] until he reached the age of majority. In this case, 21. The additional requirement of 14 years residency BEGAN at 21, so that the INITIAL year that one could consider a run for the Presidency was at the age of ... [wait for it] ... 35 !!!
Not ONLY did one need to be born a "natural born citizen", but he HAD to have had 14 years CONTINUOUS residency within the United States [excluding vacations] IMMMEDIATELY prior to his run for office ...
Yawn!! Does anybody dispute that Obama is a bonafide U.S. citizen?
___________________________________________________________________________________
Dispute? OK, not that far.
But....
Over 16 different social security numbers, some of which are numbers used by foreign national students in college (999-xx-xxxx); a ‘primary’ Social Security number of a dead man; various changes in guardianship and citizenship as a child; birthright as Britain and never renounced; travel to two countries during a period in which citizenship as an adult could be claimed (Kenya and Indonesia prior to August 4, 1984); no American passport presented for trips during that time period.
50/50....maybe a little more.
Ms. Lingle is not the Chairperson the Hawaiian Democratic Party is she. She did not certify squat and did not need to.
Brian Schatz is the guy. He knows. And he refused to step over that line.
The question is. Did he step over another line when he submitted a legally invalid OCON? What he trying to trick the CEO? Was he trying to commit fraud?
Quit hiding behind Lingle’s skirt. Maybe you can hide behind Schatz gonads. To do what he did they must be big.
Kevin B. Cronin certified Barack Obama for the Hawaii ballot and the letter from him that I linked proves that point.
The national Democrat Party and the Democrat Party of Hawaii sent certification letters on August 27th and August 28th, 2008 and on December 18, 2008, Kevin Cronin was still standing by his certification process. Has any official of the state of Hawaii EVER challenged the Obama certification for the ballot in Hawaii?
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf
If you can’t deal with the facts—Tough.
My point, which may be overly subtle, is that he could very well be a naturalized citizen. That makes him a citizen. But it does not make him a NBC. I agree there is way too NBC smoke for there to be no NBC fire.
A very good letter Butter. :-)
Texas, Georgia, Missouri.
Once a Republican sends his Longform in for inspection, Soebarkah is done. He's suspect in the other 56 states.
James,
When do the lies stop?
Kevin Cronin ACCEPTED Nancy Pelosi’s certification of Barak Obama as a eligible to serve under the Constitution.
Once again, Cronin did not certify anything. He merely accepted ‘the national party’ nomination that fulfilled the legal OCON requirements. This was because Brian Schatz did not include eligibility confirmation in his ‘state party’ OCON. Fortunately for Obama/Soros/Ayers Hawaii accepts an OCON from either the state or national party and it is up to the CEO to the decide who, if anyone, to put on the ballot.
No one in Hawaii has EVER, to this day, certified Obama as a ‘US Constitutionally eligible’ candidate.
My point, which may be overly subtle, is that he could very well be a naturalized citizen. That makes him a citizen. But it does not make him a NBC. I agree there is way too NBC smoke for there to be no NBC fire.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Most likely there is paperwork that shows Obama is a legally naturalized citizen. If he had to be legally and fully documented as a naturalized citizen upon his return from Indonesia that would be direct, legally accepted, conflict with Article II. Regardless of the arguments a formally naturalized citizen is NOT an nbC.
In 1971 the Grandparents would have likely ensured he was properly and fully documented when they assumed guardianship. His mother was still married and an Indonesian Citizen, his name-sake father was in name only. So they likely needed clean, very clean, paperwork on their grandchild. I think at that time he transfered from Lolo/Stanley Ann to Obama Sr and then to the Dunham grandparents. All legal and all with full paperwork. I can not fathom grandparents taking responsibility for a child who has multiple citizenships and whose legal guardianship is in question with no biological parents nearby.
So in 1971 Obama was likely formally naturalized after being a formally recognized Indonesian child.
It is the lack of a solid Social Security number and the use of a number belonging to a dead man in Connecticut, along with the three known uses of 999 numbers that are usually only used by foreign nationals that gives pause to whether he is a legal citizen.
Obama traveled to both Kenya and Indonesia in 1981 or 1983 (accounts vary). But in any case he could have claimed citizenship in either of these countries as an adult. He did gain Kenyan citizenship upon Kenya’s independence and he was an Indonesian citizen who could claim repatriation if he so chooses. All the while he was still, and still is a British Overseas Citizen or what is now known as a Commonwealth Citizen. The Thai leader is currently under fire for holding the same British Citizenship and never renouncing it.
So did a rebellious Obama reclaim the citizenship provided to him by his namesake father and leverage that in college? That possibility is as strong today as it ever has been.
Excellent summary, bc. Very plausible and entirely reasonable.
All Barry supporter journalists have to use the rule....If his name appears in a sentence it MUST be followed with “who was born in Hawaii” example follows:
Witnesses who testified in favor of the bill made it clear the bill is aimed at President Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii.
James,
When do the lies stop?
Kevin Cronin ACCEPTED Nancy Pelosi’s certification of Barak Obama as a eligible to serve under the Constitution.
Once again, Cronin did not certify anything. He merely accepted ‘the national party’ nomination that fulfilled the legal OCON requirements. This was because Brian Schatz did not include eligibility confirmation in his ‘state party’ OCON. Fortunately for Obama/Soros/Ayers Hawaii accepts an OCON from either the state or national party and it is up to the CEO to the decide who, if anyone, to put on the ballot.
No one in Hawaii has EVER, to this day, certified Obama as a ‘US Constitutionally eligible’ candidate.
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/hawaii-response.pdf
All of these silly attempts at the parsing of words about events that are now two and a half years old is wasted energy. Did the Chief Elections Officer of the state of Hawai’i place the names of Barack Obama and Joe Biden on the Hawai’i ballot or didn’t he? Has any legislative or judicial body ruled that those names should NOT have appeared on the Hawai’i ballot? Did a Republican administration in Hawai’i at that time attempt to stop the names of Obama and Biden from appearing on the state ballot?
“...the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawai’i. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. ... It’s been established. He was born here.”—[former]Governor of Hawai’i Linda Lingle
“The state of Hawai’i has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”—John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives
“...the faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It’s distracting. It gets annoying and let’s just stick with what really matters.”—Governor Sarah Palin
The vote on House of Representatives Resolution H.R. 593 (111th Congress, 2009) commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Hawai’i statehood and containing the statement: “The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama was born in Hawai’i on August 4, 1961,” was 378 in favor and 0 opposed.
I don't know if 0b0z0 is legally eligible to be in the WH at all!. I mean, even as a janitor. Did anybody check if he has a work permit, fraudulent SS #s, or even pays taxes?
Most likely, he's the highest-ranking illegal alien in the world. What an accomplishment, only in America!
FreeAtlanta,
I guess red steel just answered your post to me. :-)
Any form of citizenship at birth, regardless of parental citizenship, is by definition natural born citizenship in US law.
All others are naturalized.
All others are naturalized.
That IS NOT what it says in the Constitution. It JUST states "citizen". Until SCOTUS makes a decision [one way or the other] - your opinion is PURE CONJECTURE ...
From Amendment XIV, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
From the Constitution, some examples of changes made to it:
> Article I, Section 2: “[Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned...three fifths of all other Persons]*”
“*Changed by section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment”
> Article I, Section 3: “[chosen by the Legislature thereof,]*
“* Changed by section 1 of the Seventeenth Amendment.”
> Article I, Section 4: “[on the first Monday in December,]*”
“* Changed by section 2 of the Twentieth Amendment.”
> Article II, Section 1: “[The Electors shall meet in their respective States...equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]*”
“* Superseded by the Twelfth Amendment.”
> Article II, Section 1: “[In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation,...until the Disibility be removed, or a President shall be elected.]*”
“* Modified bt the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”
> Article IV, Section 2: “[No Person held to Service or Labour in one State under the laws thereof...to whom such Service or Labour may be due.]*”
“* Superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment.”
Every edition I’ve seen of the Constitution has the same basic format to denote that something has been either modified, superseded, or changed. All of the above examples of changes made have three particulars in common.
The particulars are that (1) any portion affected by the change, modification, or by being superseded is enclosed in parenthesis; (2) that portion in parenthesis is accented with an asterisk denoting a footnote; (3) at the bottom of the page there is a footnote stating what Amendment applies to the portion modified, superseded, or changed.
In Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is the phrase, “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;...”. In every edition of the Constitution I’ve seen, the format is the same for that ‘natural born citizen’ phrase: NO PARENTHESIS, NO ASTERISK, NO FOOTNOTE.
NO PARENTHESIS, NO ASTERISK, NO FOOTNOTE at “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section 1 means there is no amendment having application to the natural born citizen requirement. It means that the “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” phrase in the 14th Amendment has no bearing on Article II, Section 1. It means that nothing in the 14th Amendment changed, modified, or superseded the Founders’ mandate that the president be a natural born citizen. It means the natural born citizen requirement stands as the Founders intended: a notch above any other form of citizenship - and a requirement reserved solely for those aspiring to the office of president.
NO PARENTHESIS, NO ASTERISK, NO FOOTNOTE of the 14th to Article II means all liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist, communist moonbats who would like to continue allowing usurpers into the Oval, and who hammer away toward their goal of rendering the Constitution completely impotent can pound sand.
I agree with you completely, but SCOTUS has NEVER ruled upon it. It has had ample opportunity to do so over the last 200+ years, but has punted EVERY TIME. Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment was NOT written better, so as to eliminate any vagueness between it and Article II. Thus, people of different ideologies form differing opinions as to what "citizen" in the 14th Amendment actually means. And that is where SCOTUS comes into the picture ...
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.