Skip to comments.Manhattan man to challenge Obama's appearance on the November ballot (Kansas)
Posted on 09/13/2012 4:19:57 PM PDT by Libloather
Manhattan man to challenge Obama's appearance on the November ballot
September 13, 2012 12:00 AM
A Manhattan man was scheduled to argue before state officials Thursday afternoon that President Obama's name should not be allowed on the November general election ballot.
The appeal by Joe Montgomery was to be heard by The Kansas Board of Objections, a three-person body that resolves ballot-eligibility issues. The board is comprised of Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, Secretary of State Kris Kobach and Atty. Gen. Derek Schmidt. All three are Republicans.
In material filed with the Secretary of State's office, Montgomery argues that Obama's name should be stricken from the ballot because he does not meet the constitutional requirement that candidates have been "born in this country to parents who are both U.S. citizens, primarily to a U.S. citizen father."
(Excerpt) Read more at themercury.com ...
It doesn't matter if he is set to win or lose a state. What matters is that a State has excluded him from the ballot for failing to establish that he is qualified. The news might ripple through the political arena like lightning.
No one will be able to understand why a man would fail to contest a state because he refuses to produce an inexpensive document.
Yes. I was actually thinking to ping you about this, because I was very skeptical of what you were saying but it makes sense now.
“What matters is that a State has excluded him from the ballot for failing to establish that he is qualified.”
That doesn’t look like it is going to happen. The pressure is building.
“Conservative Kansas Congressman: Obama Will Be On The Ballot”
I’m pretty sure these are numbers from pg 47 of the CDC report:
Jan: 1490 (start: #151 61 00001)
Feb: 1254 (start: #151 61 01491)
Mar: 1510 (start: #151 61 02745)
Apr: 1388 (start: #151 61 04255)
May: 1400 (start: #151 61 05643)
Jun: 1374 (start: #151 61 07043)
Jul: 1532 (start: #151 61 08417)
Aug: 1472 (start: #151 61 09949)
Sep: 1594 (start: #151 61 11421)
Oct: 1624 (start: #151 61 13015)
Nov: 1440 (start: #151 61 14639)
Dec: 1538 (start: #151 61 16079)
If the Nordyke numbers are genuine, those numbers won’t work with the numbering method that Verna K L Lee described. That’s why I calculated the starting point for August based on the Nordyke numbers. In order for those numbers to work out they would have had to have 27 days of Honolulu births all happen within the first 4 days of August.
“In order for those numbers to work out they would have had to have 27 days of Honolulu births all happen within the first 4 days of August”
Didn’t Vern Lee say that the BCs were collected for the month and separated geographically. If Kapiolani births were numbered first, there would be some BCs from the end of the month that would be numbered before births that occurred in a different geographic area but earlier in the month. Is that why Virginia Sunahara’s number is outside the range of the people born at Kapiolani?
There were only 17578 births in Hawaii in 1961 (Table 2-2). The 17616 comes from all births to women who listed Hawaii as their residence even if their child were born in a California (other state’s) hospital.
For the numbers to start at 1 at the beginning of the year there would have be to 27 days’ worth of Honolulu births numbered in August before they ever got to the BC#’s for the Nordykes, who were born on Aug 5th.
That’s a difference of 38 people. One person/day. It’s not going to change the result of the analysis.
It would change the numbers in KennethJohnKelly post for monthly births.
If we look at Edith Coates 6/15/1962 BC and the 1962 Natality report, there were 7400 births by the end of May and 8842 by the end of June. Edith’s cert # is 8498. That means between June 1st and June 15th there were 1098 births and only 344 births from June 16th to June 30th. Edith was born at the same hospital as Virgina Sunahara (IIRC). So if a month’s worth of Kapiolani Hospital births were numbered ahead of her’s you would expect that her BC to have an unusually high number.
If we look at Janna’s 12/21/1971 BC and the 1971 Natality report, there were 14506 births by the end of November and 15838 by the end of December. Her cert # is 015396 which means there were 890 births numbered before her and 442 births after her. She was born at Kapiolani but we don’t know her last name.
It appears to me that they collected BCs for the month as Vern Lee said and separated them by geographic locations before numbering them.
Also the cert numbers for the Coates and Janna BCs suggest that they were numbered sequentially at the beginning of each year.
I couldn't think of a more plausible explanation for what we are seeing. I had the advantage of being familiar with my own situation. As I was adopted, I knew that it was a common occurrence for State governments to create fake birth documents which are designed to resemble originals. I have a copy of my official "fake" birth certificate sitting on my desk for the last several years. :)
When the State does it officially, it's not illegal. It's fake, but it's not forgery. It's still not the truth either, and we should not stop till we eventually discover the truth.
Conservative Kansas Congressman: Obama Will Be On The Ballot
I didn't think it was going to work. There's too much of a herd mentality out there. The Emperor has no clothes, but no one wants to stand up and say it. Especially not governmental officials who would invite a massive backlash against themselves.
Ut Oh. So Zippos peeps didn;t think they could sway the commitee so they focused on a citizen with a family....
In this case it most likely was illegal though, because the law requires the registrant to have been born in Hawaii and with a non-valid record the State of Hawaii could not say whether he was or wasn’t born in Hawaii. My suspicion is that they tried to resolve that dilemma by making the new BC non-valid just like the original, so that in neither case would they say that they vouch for any birth claims.
And reassigning Obama SOMEBODY ELSE’s BC# is not authorized in HRS 338-17.7. The only reason to change Stig Waidelich’s BC# is if Stig Waidelich is in danger. The only reason to change Virginia Sunahara’s BC# is if Virginia Sunahara is in danger. And we know that not to be the case. The new BC was not supposed to infringe on anything legally real; was just supposed to be a cosmetic cover-up so somebody could claim to be somebody else and the “bad guys” couldn’t find them.
Why do you assume they are not pressuring everyone involved?
It’s not hard to imagine what they did to the families and relatives of all those judges that have dismissed the other eligibility cases...
If they can get away with this there is nothing they can’t do.
This is how cartels are emboldened to gut people and hang them from bridges if they speak out against the cartels.
We are a hair’s breadth from the fate of Mexico. If we don’t find our courage now, we may never have this chance again.
It was already clear that the board had rejected the two citizen parent theory.
“Montgomery argued Thursday that to be eligible for president, both of Obama’s parents had to be U.S. citizens when he was born, another long-circulating claim that includes citations of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, some more than a century old.”
“Schmidt and Kobach disagreed. Kobach said Montgomery was “trying to read too much in these very old decisions.””
They were going to accept whatever Hawaii said, even if they couldn’t get hold of Hawaii.
Faulty thinking. The closer to the Founding, the more likely a decision would be accurate. I've noticed the tendency of people to care more about what judges said than what founders said. Found this the other day. (Thanks to Dr. Conspiracy)
James Monroe, Paris 4th July 1795
A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious 1 Page Break
disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle. More latterly I was requested by the commissary of foreign affairs to prohibit our consuls from granting passports, which was immediately done. I was afterwards requested by him to furnish a list of the Americans actually in Paris, and to render a like list every decade of those who should in the interim arrive, and which was promised and will be punctually executed. I herewith send you a copy of my instructions to the Consuls and correspondence with the commissary on this subject.
They were going to accept whatever Hawaii said, even if they couldnt get hold of Hawaii.
Yeah, that's the other thing. They want to accept whatever everyone else thinks is correct. The Baby boom generation are pansies compared to the World War II generation. (And pretty much all others as well.)
No comment on my James McClure PM?
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.