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 ...
WHAT GIVES?
Pardon my ignorance but what is “Soma”?
The lengths Obama has gone not to show the birth certificate and his successfulness up until now to keep it under wraps is equivalent to holding the country hostage and saying bend the rules for me or a civil war will break out.
I think we're seeing the exposure of a mammoth hole in our election system. If I understand what I've read correctly, candidates are certified as eligible at the STATE level. And when queried on vetting of presidential candidates in California, the Secretary of State said that candidates are vetted by the PARTY. So we depend on the Democrats' honesty and diligence?
It should absolutely not be possible to become a presidential candidate without first proving eligibility, yet I believe that has clearly happened here. I believe this man is definitely not a natural-born citizen and quite possibly not a U.S. citizen AT ALL.
It should also not be possible to become a presidential candidate when you can't pass even a low-level security clearance background check, yet there is NO doubt that this has happened here. If you don't believe that, let you or I apply for a government job that requires a security clearance, and let the background check reveal that we have spent time in the company of domestic terrorists, and see if you or I get that job. My wife worked years ago for a U.S. Attorney, and the FBI was all in a dither during her background check because she once visited a man in the hospital who had ties to counterfeiting.
I'm absolutely convinced that we have the most stupendous example imaginable of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Or to put it more accurately, what the right hand is NOT doing. It's nobody's official job to see the proof of citizenship, so it just doesn't get seen. It's nobody's job to say, "Hey, we couldn't clear this guy to work as a receptionist at many government facilities," so it doesn't get said.
The result is staggering. There are now many suits filed on the citizenship issue, but the security issue remains untouched and unnoticed as far as I can tell. Unbelievable.
This, my FRiends, is what a coup d'bureaucracy looks like.
MM (in TX)
Maybe we could have Allen Keyes become president and the blacks would still get their man.
ping
“Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence,”
Yes, also note that Barry's famous COLB says "Date Filed By Registrar” versus the more accurate "Date Accepted By Registrar.”
Words mean things...
It's the House of Representatives that must pick among the top 3 electoral vote getters. The electors, at least in 26 states, can vote for whom they chose. In the other 24, which by law nominally require the elector to vote as pledged, probably have escape clauses to cover the death or inability to serve of the person they are pledged to vote for, whether those clauses cover the situation of a candidate found to be ineligible, would have to be determined on a case by case basis.
I bet Gov Lingle of Hawaii could answer alot of question but she is hiding somewhere under a rock.
gnip...
I think we're seeing the exposure of a mammoth hole in our election system. If I understand what I've read correctly, candidates are certified as eligible at the STATE level. And when queried on vetting of presidential candidates in California, the Secretary of State said that candidates are vetted by the PARTY. So we depend on the Democrats' honesty and diligence?
It should absolutely not be possible to become a presidential candidate without first proving eligibility, yet I believe that has clearly happened here. I believe this man is definitely not a natural-born citizen and quite possibly not a U.S. citizen AT ALL.
It should also not be possible to become a presidential candidate when you can't pass even a low-level security clearance background check, yet there is NO doubt that this has happened here. If you don't believe that, let you or I apply for a government job that requires a security clearance, and let the background check reveal that we have spent time in the company of domestic terrorists, and see if you or I get that job. My wife worked years ago for a U.S. Attorney, and the FBI was all in a dither during her background check because she once visited a man in the hospital who had ties to counterfeiting.
I'm absolutely convinced that we have the most stupendous example imaginable of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Or to put it more accurately, what the right hand is NOT doing. It's nobody's official job to see the proof of citizenship, so it just doesn't get seen. It's nobody's job to say, "Hey, we couldn't clear this guy to work as a receptionist at many government facilities," so it doesn't get said.
The result is staggering. There are now many suits filed on the citizenship issue, but the security issue remains untouched and unnoticed as far as I can tell. Unbelievable.
This, my FRiends, is what a coup d'bureaucracy looks like.
MM (in TX)
Yep, ignoring the Rule of Law will cause the breakdown. What parts of the Constitution will the goverment uphold and other part will government let slide?
The Constitution is not a buffet where you pick and choose what you want...
Along with tens of millions of law abiding, armed, peaceable citizens. Although they tend to get a mite less peaceable when they or theirs are threatened.
I couldn't even get a drivers license without showing mine.
It's already happening all over. My liberal family has pretty much disowned me at this point.
Speaking of ammo, just added to my stockpile. 00 and number 4 for my 12 gauge pump.
Obama’s Certification of Live Birth states that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on the Island of Oahu on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 P.M.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg
There are birth announcements in both major Honolulu newspapers for him from Sunday, August 13, 1961:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
Once again, the Hawaii Certification of Live Birth is “prima facie evidence of birth in any court proceeding.” It is all the evidence that Obama need ever present to anybody. The US Constititution does not prescribe a method for determining “natural born” status. Obama’s Certification of Live Birth in Hawaii has been corroborated by two state officals, both appointed by a Republican governor who endorsed John McCain for President.
Nine courts have now heard evidence in this case, none has granted relief to any plaintiff.
Here’s excerpts from the judge’s decision in one of the dismissals seeking a Writ of Mandamus in Virginia:
http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/archives/218
It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason: Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between "December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986? Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: ".If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai'i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after*. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawai'i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Cizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.
“OH... and you would think that if this case were frivolous or ridiculous in any way, that the MSM would be ALL OVER IT just to make fools out of republicans.”
EXCELLENT OBSERVATION!
Biden is impeachment insurance.
no because if Obama loses the electoral votes from CA for instance because of the lawsuit. Then McCain is president.
It would not be impeacment.
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.
