'Birther' challenges Obama

Concord Monitor ^ | November 18, 2011 | Matthew Spolar

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Photo by Alexander Cohn / Concord Monitor Politicians get a lot harder to photograph once the Secret Service gets involved. In New Hampshire we are somewhat spoiled by our access to politicians when they are running for national office. Then contrast that with a visit by an elected President and the layers of security that accompany it to see a huge difference. When President Obama visited Nashua in February there were not only layers of security, but I ended up in the outer tier of access, photographing the event from the far side of a basketball court on a riser with about a dozen other photographers and cameramen. Way out there. This was not someone's living room. Though it wasn't the best vantage point, I rolled with it. As the questions came in from the audience President Obama seemed less an less at ease and his frame reflects that. This was the first time we had covered the President since he had been a candidate and the change seemed dramatic. --Alexander Cohn President Obama listens to a question on energy policy from former Congressman Dick Swett of Bow, NH after discussing the economy, health care and more at Nashua North High School; Tuesday, February 2, 2010. Photo caption.

Don't pencil in a victory for President Obama in New Hampshire's Democratic primary just yet. Today, the incumbent president must withstand a legal challenge that again questions his eligibility to seek the country's highest office.

At 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the legislative office building, the state's Ballot Law Commission is set to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer who has continued to question the validity of Obama's birth certificate and Social Security number since his 2008 election.

Backing her complaint, Taitz said, are four Republican members of the New Hampshire House: Harry Accornero of Laconia, Larry Rappaport of Colebrook, and Lucien and Carol Vita of Middleton.

"There's sufficient controversy that I want it investigated," Rappaport, a Ron Paul supporter, said yesterday. "Every time this is brought up . . . we get a lot of flak, but we've never gotten an answer."

Obama released his birth certificate in response to media inquiries in 2008, but the document did little to quiet skepticism from the so-called "birther" movement. In April, in response to continued interest in the president's nationality - fueled by statements by real estate mogul Donald Trump as he toyed with a presidential run - Obama also released a copy of his long-form birth certificate.

"I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I could take that apart and see that it was fraudulent," Rappaport said of the long-form certificate.

Lucien Vita said the birth certificate issue "should have been put to bed years ago" and also believes the documents released by Obama were forged.

"Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see," he said.

Vita considers himself a constitutionalist and both he and his wife support Ron Paul, he said.

"I have doubts because of the delay in the time it actually took to come out with a long-form birth certificate," Vita said. "I don't want to go through another four years of the same tripe."

Vita said he's confident the Republican candidates are American citizens "because these people have all held other state offices" - though he acknowledged that could also apply to Obama, who was a U.S. senator before being elected president.

"We know where they were born," Vita said of the Republicans. "There's a level of credibility with Obama that has not sufficiently been met in my eyes. If he's a citizen, he should be able to prove it."

Taitz's complaint also questions the validity of Obama's Social Security number, and she said the exhibits presented to the Ballot Law Commission show "undeniable, irrefutable evidence that Barack Obama is using a Social Security number that was never assigned to him."

"I'm hoping that the board will decide not to allow him on the ballot," Taitz said. "And if he wants to be on the ballot, he will have to provide an explanation."

Taitz was born in the Soviet Union. Though she cannot run for president, she is running as a Republican for a seat in the California Senate.

"I know what it is to live in a dictatorship . . . where the whole system is corrupt," Taitz said. "And that's what we're seeing here."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[musicman]

Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[bitt]

at :20 is where we are listening...and it is unclear due to some paper shuffling - I can’t make out his exact words, either... he did declare many things that the board is NOT required or entitled to do...but what he says as to the Constitution is not clear...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM7LIfq1RuM&feature=youtu.be

[bitt]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=369241

[GregNH]

It sounds to me like he saying “we are not a Supreme court on the Constitution”

[bitt]

see 17
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2809659/posts?page=17#17

[TheCipher]

If she has not done so already, it appears Orly can yet submit, prior to the close of business on Monday, a fully supported written brief that makes the argument O is not qualified.

She does have another chance. This was just for the primary. After the party convention, they have to submit papers to the SOS indicating that is the candidate for the general election ( like the one Pelosi signed ). The SOS has to certify those papers.

[frog in a pot]

She does have another chance. The SOS has to certify those [general election] papers.

You are right, of course. However, the lessons since 2008 are that the issue must be timely addressed. In my view, and subject to the advice of local counsel which Orly almost certainly has, that is Tuesday morning in NH and it would be to stop off at the NH AG’s office or the courthouse, or perhaps both.

Clearly, her objective has been to give the NH SOS reason to deny an apparently unqualified candidate access to the ballot and being blown off by a commission is not the end of it. It is now more apparent to me that she did timely file a written objection and one hopes she will update that writing on Monday to document the seemingly defective behavior of the Commission.

Most would probably agree the SOS will not deny access based on the public’s knowledge of a foreign father, or Minor and the subsequent cases; nor should one expect that an argument over allegedly false federal SS#'s will provide such a reason to the SOS.

However, under NH's statutory scheme the SOS does have, or ought to have, an interest in whether candidates perjure themselves when submitting nomination papers. Hopefully, Orly set out in her objection a logical argument supported by the affidavits of experts that not only has this candidate not ever produced authentic birth documents to the public but rather has resisted doing so in each of many law suits.

So the issue can be easily stated: Does a government which obligates its citizens to certify a fact under penalty of perjury have a) the right and obligation to investigate reasonably apparent violations of that obligation and b) the right and obligation to compel production of documents that cure such apparent violations?

[BonRad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM7LIfq1RuM&feature=youtu.be GregNH...you are a patriot!

I can’t get this - this doesn’t look like a proper youtube address. I’ve looked under upload dates with keys words patriot and GregNH as well

[danamco]

Thank you for the ping!!!

[danamco]

Ping

[bitt]

IT WORKS..YES IT DOES LOOK FUNNY....

TRY IT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM7LIfq1RuM&feature=youtu.be

[butterdezillion]

The argument given by the Obama supporters is that a SOS can’t so much as blow her nose unless a law specifically gives her the command to do so, what time to do so, and prescribes penalties and a procedure to enforce penalties if she doesn’t do so.

If that’s the standard that judges will apply, then equal protection would mean the government has its hands tied if we choose to sue them over every action they take that isn’t specifically described and mandated by law. Open the door to the Senate? Where does the law say who can open the door and when? Walk over the threshold? When were any of the Congress-critters instructed to walk across the threshold? Etc.

That’s the degree of tedium we’re dealing with here. Cloward-Piven.

[GregNH]

http://www.youtube.com/user/GregMCMLV?feature=mhee

[bvw]

That fact is that the citizens of America in 2011 have not been granted the rights established in the following precedent in the matter of the Constitutional eligibility one Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, and other aliases.

---

1670, London

Penn. I am unacquainted with the formality of the law, and therefore before I shall answer directly, I request two things of the court. 1. That no advantage may be taken against me, nor I deprived of any benefit, which I might otherwise have received. 2. That you will promise me a fair hearing, and liberty of making my defence.

Court. No advantage shall be taken against you; you shall have liberty; you shall be heard.

---

From “The Trial of William Penn and William Mead, at the Old Bailey, for a Tumultuous Assembly”
http://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm

[EyeGuy]

“The title by the author is a little demeaning using the Birther name.”

###

A tactic you can see even here on FR from the Obama defenders.

[GregNH]

But she did blow her nose in 08! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2808647/posts?page=152#152

[butterdezillion]

If Sal Mohamed was listed as one who “filed”, he must have signed a declaration of candidacy and paid the fee. Was he running as a third-party candidate? If so, did he have the signatures needed?

They’re trying to say that all they can pay attention to is what is required by law for the candidate to do. If they paid attention to anything but Sal Mohamed’s declaration of candidacy, signatures for a third-party run, and the filing fee, then they have to be willing to do the same for every other candidate as well - whether that is something else that the candidate gave them or evidence somebody else gave them about the candidate.

You’re right, Greg. She did blow her nose in ‘08, and if she’s gonna play this kind of game, then somebody should slam her with a lawsuit claiming she had no right to leave Mohamed off the ballot - even if he openly claims to not be eligible. Roger Calero was also openly ineligible but made it onto the ballot (unless I’m confusing NH and NJ). Heck, slam her with a lawsuit saying she’s an Islamophobe or anti-Arab racist for leaving off somebody who’s from Egypt but not a Hispanic from Nicaragua or a Black from Kenya. She needs to be hit with the absurdity of her own arguments, and the absurdity of the arguments from the whole cabal that claims the Constitution and laws are unenforceable if every jot and tiddle isn’t specifically detailed.

And the claim of this panel that they can’t decide anything about who is a “natural born citizen” because they aren’t SCOTUS is all shot to heck by the emails you’ve got in your possession, Greg. Who are they to say that Mohamed wasn’t a NBC just because he was born in Egypt? What if one of his parents was a US citizen? If so then he was a US citizen at birth, and there are some people who are claiming that’s all that “natural born citizen” means. For them to have made ANY decision about him not being NBC means that their claim now about not being able to define NBC is just a bunch of BS.

The way the courts get a case to decide is by somebody making the decision and somebody challenging that decision. Like it or not, somebody besides the court HAS to make a decision about NBC before the courts can ever even take a case about it. And SOS’s have been making those decisions ever since this nation was founded. These current claims are utter BS and this board needs to have their face wiped in that fact.

[butterdezillion]

That’s the kind of response Judge David Carter gave Orly Taitz - until he hired a clerk from Perkins-Coie (Obama’s defender) and then did a complete reversal of everything he had done before.

Sheriff Joe needs to depose Carter during a polygraph. Maybe subpoena phone records as well, although this administration either destroys or refuses to disclose anything that proves their own wrong-doing so subpoenas are basically useless. Search warrants are the way to go. Then again, you have to have a judge sign off on those, and the case of Carter shows us what our judiciary is made of...

[bvw]

There is a major breakdown in judicial process, in the temper and humanity of the judiciary and bar.

The solution is to open it up, remove many the restrictions to becoming a member of the bar, of those able to represent others before a court.