Posted on 11/14/2008 7:05:09 PM PST by solfour
The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others.
The legal action today is just the latest is a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural-born citizen," a requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
“... so I feel he could be born on the moon ...”
- - -
It matters not one whit how you “feel” about it.
The law is the law. And we do not know the facts.
When the law is against you, then pound the facts.
When the facts are against you, then pound the law.
When the law and the facts are against you, then pound the table.
“The records subitted to the Mormons are only as accurate as the research of the person who submitted them.”
- - -
True for anything, anywhere, anytime.
The birth announcement is irrelevant. Zero’s grandparents would have put it in the paper no matter where he was born.
No conspiracy is involved in such an announcement which is silent as to place of birth it should be noted.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, Democrat and Obama Supporter... Did anyone expect a different response?
I agree.
All of these requirements vary form state-to state
and from record type-to-record type.
In the state of Georgia,
you can not gain access to a birth certificate unless your name appears on it.
In other words, I am not allowed to see my father’s or mother’s birth certificate
because my name does not appear there-on.
Only the parent or the child can get a copy.
I know this from many years of geneological research, and from
issues with two of my children who we adopted as infants.
(There MAY be exceptions but they would require a court order.)
If the shoe fits.
Would you prefer I be strident, rude and aggressive? I use terms like “believe” and “feel” because I choose to be polite in my dealings here. I understand that many of you are passionate about this topic and I don’t choose to belittle that—passion is great. I also appreciate all the information that has been provided here.
I do not understand why, because I do not agree with you fully, you feel the need to be rude. I understand the frustration and fear over Obama’s election, believe me I do! Maybe this well change things—Good luck digging—but if it doesn’t we are all still on the same side and looking towards 2010 and 2012!
see 1469
Oh gee, thanks! *eye roll and groan—hee hee* I swore that if Virginia went for Obama, I would lock myself in the cellar! It really is heartbreaking . . .
The idea that she would take the word of a political party instead of her department doing it means the Cal election process is open to various types of corruption.
“I swore that if Virginia went for Obama,
I would lock myself in the cellar!”
- - -
It’s not too late.
“The father’s country could be used for classification if he was a race other than white!”
If “national origin” is interpreted to mean COUNTRY, I concur. But the quote you originally provided explicitly states:
“Classification of the child’s race or national origin for statistical purposes is based on the race or national origin of the parents. The categories are “White,” “Black,” “American Indian,” “Chinese,” “Japanese,” “Hawaiian,” “Filipino,” “Other Asian or Pacific Islander,” and “Other” races.”
The categories listed codify what was meant by national origin: e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Filipino. African was NOT listed as a possibility. As my old link suggested, AFRICAN does not answer the question of race OR color since Africa is a continent of many races and colors. “Negro” was the most straight-forward way of answering the question in 1961.
“It was not until the late 1960s that black (or Black) gained its present status as a self-chosen ethnonym with strong connotations of racial pride, replacing the then-current Negro among Blacks and non-Blacks alike with remarkable speed.” http://www.answers.com/topic/black
I don’t care long youv’e been here.
You have failed to respect the importance of Constitution principles.
Your posting history ID’s you as a sorry LIB in a heartbeat.
Your posts DEFEND a man who has just orchestrated a fraudulent coup of our national government through the force of corrupt government sponsored tools like ACORN and deceitful Elections offices in key states.
Your posts DEFEND a man that is controlled by foreign influences to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Your posts DEFEND a man that has been in bed with radical Anti-American Leftists that are hell-bent on bringing America to her knees.
Your posts DEFEND a man that will destroy our Constitutional Republic and does not pledge his allegiance solely to our flag.
Your posts DEFEND a man that has hidden and fought to keep any and all information regarding his ‘true nature’ form the citizenry of America.
You have no business on this forum and you know it .
Pa & Ma can’t be so naive or unintelligent that they fail to grasp the concept that a Constitutional crises will create for America.
He did for a fact, just couldn't overcome McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy(Amnesty) the bailout, and a few others.
If the Obama people had done nothing underhanded or evasive on this issue a lot of suspicions would be dismissed. Had he acted like McCain and released the documents there would be no interest in this other than theoretic. BUT he has had no response which was not sheer evasion such as using arguments about “standing” to dismiss the issue.
McCain made no claims about lack of standing he just showed the documents. Why hasn’t Obama?
THEN there is the extremely suspicious Senate activity initiated around the challenge to McCain regarding his eligibility. Now, rather than let it lie after a Court acted, the Democrats pushed a Resolution #511 which declared him eligible (as if it had ANYTHING to say about this). But that was not enough; they tried to sneak a provision in declaring naturalizied citizens eligible (also something they have NO power to do). Had some sharp eyed Republican not spotted this mendacity it would have passed. Now ask yourself “Why did they do this?”
A great deal of this interest is driven by “The dog which didn’t bark.”
Wow.
Gun's and Butter Johnston, I remember it well.
Back when reporter actually looked for news, they went out and showed welfare people's refrigerator's stocked with beer, Johnston argued it was no ones business what people chose to do with their cough, cough money.
Most of us don’t care about WHO his father is just if he is eligible to be the President. We don’t care if it is Malcolm X, Charlie Chan or Don Ho.
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.