Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Free speech’

I have to say it’s been quite entertaining to watch the parade of people withdraw themselves from nominated positions as they head over to find their places underneath the bus. It’s probably a  fleet of buses or a long train by now there are so many people under it!

 It seems many of them have a hard time remembering  to pay their taxes. Hmm are these the same people who were blathering on about how paying taxes was patriotic and we should all want to pay higher taxes? Isn’t that what Joe Biden said?

Of course I forgot to mention Bill Richardson who is currently under investigation by a federal grand jury in a pay to play scheme thus he had to withdraw from his nomination for Secretary of Commerce.

Then we have Tom Dashel and Nancy Killefer withdrawing for not paying taxes and Tim Giethner was confirmed despite having a similar embarassing problem. Not to mention the whole “nobody will work in my administration if they have been a lobbyist.” thing.

Give us a break! Now the media is finally starting to report on the plethora of problems. Well all I can say is where the hell were they for the last two years? How is it no one saw this coming? WE saw it coming! We told you so idiots!

I’ll tell you why no one saw this coming because the mainstream media deliberately played the role of public relations representative rather than do their job and report accurately the facts and or lack of them in an unbiased and professional manner. They in fact became more than a little responsible for the outcome of the primaries and the election and they will share the responsibility of the aftermath.

I will admit to being pleased with the decision to limit the salaries and bonuses of top executives of companies that take Bailout funds. I think pretty much everybody agrees on that except maybe the execs who will have to take a pay cut.

Listen if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they should expect some conditions. After all if they are in bad shape and need bailing out shouldn’t they be looking for ways to cut expenses and railse more capital? Isn’t that more reasonable than to continue spending on lavish office remodels or over the top business retreats? Or paying say, $400 Million to have your name on a stadium?

If they want us to foot the bill they should expect not to go on as though it’s business as usual. It’s not. Not when you need bailing out that is about as far from business as usual as you can get and still be in business and it dictates that you do some serious evaluation and re-tooling at the very least. To get out of the position where you need a bailout and get to a position where you make a profit they should be thinking this way already.

If they don’t like the conditions they should look elsewhere for help. Now if they want to pull their own fat out of the fire it is their business how they spend their gains. That’s the American way.

Though lately I’ve had some interesting conversations with people on this subject and find myself wondering what some people are really thinking. One friend suggested that we go even further and limit the salaries and bonuses of all company executives regardless of whether they accept bailout funds or whether they are private or public companies.

His theory is that no one can possibly make more than the president without having broken some law or regulation and without having screwed over “the rest of us”. My reaction was something like WTF?

I think that is way too far myself. Isn’t one of the greatest things about our country? Isn’t the American Dream the idea that if you have an idea or a product, a service or whatever and you do what it takes to make a sucsess the sky is the limit? The idea that anyone can make it regardless of who they are?

I understand the anger and the feeling that many times the Big Shots get where they are on the backs of the rest of us. I mean I get just as PO’das the next person over all these people who rip others off or waste money on stupid things then cry about needing a bailout even as their own bad management caused the problem but do we really want to go so far that nobody can make more than a set amount?

Who decides what that amount is? Will that amount be different for different people or will everybody have the same limits? What happens if your idea makes more than that? Should you not benefit from your efforts?

I’m all for doing what we can to preserve the idea of freedom we have here. I want to improve it as well by doing what we can to make all of us more free and insuring equality but if we get too involved in legislating people’s freedom it can have the adverse effect of making us all less free.

JMO what’s yours?

 

CQ

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Here you go folks! Forget the tinfoil hats The FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force have decided that “Super Patriots” and citizens who quote the Constitution are on par with the Skinheads and the KKK.  In other words we who quote the Constitution must be watched and reported to the authorities. Big Brother is watching you!

This is no conspiracy theory it’s right here in print:

FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force Flyer

FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force Flyer

 

Yup! Apparently people who quote the constitution, ask for authority or reason behind Law Enforcement stopping them and people who want to protect animals and the environment are possible domestic terrorists! Along with many other people.

Granted, some of the groups and types of people on this list should be there but since when is patriotism a crime or a reason to suspect someone of terrorism? Hat tip to Savage Politics.

A member of the St. Louis CofCC contacted the Sheriff’s Department named on the flyer.

According to Terry Chapman of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office — whose name is on the flyer as the MCSO contact — the FBI created the flyer and printed the MCSO and Attorney’s Office before the text was approved. He said it was created as a full color brochure to hand out to officers, not for the general public — and that as soon as he saw it, he urged them not to use it, knowing it had some problems.

“The flyer never got off the ground,” said Officer Chapman, “but it did
manage to make it’s way out — and maybe it’s right that it did.” He genuinely
didn’t like this piece of junk, and he showed true concern about my issues with
the flyer, too. “We were not happy with it. It was formulated, I think, for
legitimate purposes, but it fell on stony ground because of the way it was worded
– the unfortunate profiles that were put in there outraged a number of people
who received it.”

Thank goodness someone had the sense to see this was just ridiculous. You have to wonder though if the next thing will be those who express dissent with the current political powers that be. How long before we have  Ayers style re-education camps?

What say you?   

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

For those following the Chester Arthur story that I stole shamelessly from Leo Donofrio’s site where he has done some impressive research there is an update. Chester Arthur lied and burned his papers because his father was not a naturalized US citizen until August 31, 1843. So Chester, 14 years old at the time, was NOT a “natural born citizen” and as such was not eligible to serve as either President or Vice President as he would have had to be born to two US citizens to meet that qualification.

If you have not read about this fascinating but mostly unknown piece of our country’s history you’ll want to start here:  https://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/this-is-not-the-first-time-this-country-has-faced-this-issue/ 

For the rest of the story here is a link to Leo’s site where he continues with the evidence that was turned up by his extensive research complete with a link to the actual naturalization record for Chester’s father, William Arthur.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

Here’s an excerpt:

[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of  “Chester Allan Arthur”, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006  ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792  192 pages. ]

I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress.   He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.

Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.  President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843.  But Chester Arthur was born in 1829.  Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.

We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880.  Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

How ironic that the allegations  started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.

Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject.   It was bunk.  It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont.   But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.

That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.

We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.

There’s more, much more but you’ll have to follow the links. Trust me it’s well worth it and for a lawyer Leo writes in a very easy to understand style. You won’t need to wade through any lawyer-speak I promise!

While it’s very interesting it also has some very clear parallels to the current situation that is moving through our courts now. Indeed if anything it proves the point that the intent of the founders was to have no Commander in Chief with divided loyalties.

Yes, I have heard the SCOTUS denied the stay filed by Leo Donofrio but I also know this is not the only case and there are at least two more being moved through the SCOTUS right now. Not to mention several other cases at the state level. The court has not given a reason for their denial of Mr. Donofrio’s case but Leo himself says it may be because of some filing errors.

All I can say is these people, the Supreme Court Justices are sworn to uphold, protect and defend our constitution and the law of our land and if they fail to do so they should also be prepared for the consequences. Lawyers are already talking about how they will fight any laws signed by The Great Fraudulent One and how it could be used as a defense in many cases should the truth come out and confirm what most of us already believe to be true.

I cannot believe they did not choose to hear the case even if soley for the purpose of insuring this uncertainy never happens again, that we have a set method for assuring the American voters that the candidates on the ballot are eligible to hold the office they are running for.

We need a method of verification and we need a method for holding people accountable. If nothing else to insure Roger Calero or another non-citizen does not manage to get on the ballot again. If they are more concerned about “upsetting the apple cart” than they are about insuring our laws are complied with and the public is not being duped then they should perhaps step down and allow some more impartial judges to take over.

Not only is this a constitutional crisis if  Obama is ineligible, it is a crisis of faith. Simply put how can the voter have faith in the system, the laws, courts or any office holder if the court declines to establish that the highest office in the land is not gained through illegal and illicit means? Voter confidence is out the window and down the drain if they cannot even count on the highest court in the land to safeguard this.

When people lose faith and confidence in their officials and in their courts can revolution be far behind?

CQ

Read Full Post »

Like many people I thought this case of the “certificate gate” or whatever was unique and the first time we as a country had faced this particular challenge. Wrong!

Over the course of our history this issue has come up before. (Yet no one has done anything about creating a method for preventing it.)

I’m not talking about Roger Calero, the candidate from the Socialist Workers Party, who has been on the ballot in the previous two elections in spite of the fact that it is well known that he was born in Nicaragua and is not even a citizen but a permanent resident alien and therefore ineligible. (He has a green card) That is a different story. Though one can’t help but wonder why would he run knowing he is ineligible and why would his party put him on the ballot knowing this? (Shouldn’t there be some recourse against this as it is fraud of the highest degree?)

I’m referring to President #21, Chester Arthur, who apparently became President when one of his ardent supporters shot and killed President Garfield making Arthur, then Vice President, the President.

Apparently there was some question as to whether or not he met the “natural born” qualification and it was a very similar argument to the one the Supreme Court Justices are hearing in a conference today. Eerily similar in many ways.

As many already know Leo C. Donofrio, an attourney from New Jersey, has filed a lawsuit to stop the Electoral College from casting their votes for Barrack Obama under the claims that he is not a “natural born citizen” under the law and that even if he was born in Hawaii, Mr. Donofrio assumes that he was unless the evidence shows otherwise, he is a dual citizen due to his father being a British/Kenyan citizen and his mother, a US citizen was not old enough at the time to have legally passed her citizenship on to her son.

There IS a precedent for this line of thinking which the case of Chester Arthur shows. There is also a similar pattern of trying to cover one’s tracks as you will see in the story I’m linking to below.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/president-chester-arthur-et-al-why-they-aren%e2%80%99t-precedent-for-obama%e2%80%99s-eligibility/

             Chester Arthur …or the strange lies of our 21st President

And here we have a very interesting story full of intrigue.   Arthur became President when one of his supporters shot President Garfield with an exclamation of joy that Arthur would now be President.

More relevant to our discussion is that during his Vice-Presidential campaign, Chester Arthur was accused by an attorney named Arthur Hinman of having been born abroad.   But there was absolutely no merit to the charge.  Hinman first accused Chester of being born in Ireland, then he switched his claim to Canada.  Hinman, a new York lawyer, wrote an accusatory pamphlet under the heading, “How A British Subject Became A President of the United States.”

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves.  It’s an exhaustive reference chock full of notes.  Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible.   It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history.  Also, Chester Arthur burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819.  His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped to Canada in 1821.  They had their first child, Regina in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

THE MYSTERY – When was William Arthur naturalized?  I don’t know.  The only reference historian I know who ventured a date said it was 1843, but that historian also said he got that from “Gentleman Boss” and I could not find such a reference in the book.  I spent a few hours with the book today. I examined every reference to William in the index and also went over the early years with a microscope.  No reference to the naturalization date.

FACTS

By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont.  Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824.   Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829.   Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

It gets interesting here because of the Naturalization Act of 1802.  That act set the requisite of five years residence in the United States for those who wanted to become naturalized citizens.   Doing the math, we know that William Arthur had moved to Vermont no later than 1824.  Chester was born in October 1829.  So if William had taken action on being naturalized in his first year, then he very well could have been a US citizen when Arthur was born.  William studied law and taught school before he became a preacher in 1827, so he should have been familiar with the process of acquiring citizenship.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S FIRST LIE

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 5… regarding Chester’s birthday:

“…on October 5, 1829, Malvina Arthur gave birth to her fifth child.  (The traditional date 1830 is incorrect.  Arthur made himself a year younger, no doubt out of simply vanity, some time between 1870 and 1880…)”

Perhaps it was out of vanity, but perhaps he had a more sinister motive.   Reeves establishes Chester changed his date in the decade of his most serious political career, 1770-1780.   Chester was also a very skilled New York lawyer.   If he had a problem with his father’s naturalization date, then moving back his birthday by a year might have fixed it.  We will revisit this later.   Suspend judgment for now.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S SECOND LIE

And this is where our villain Hinman returns.  But was he a villain to Arthur?  Hinman made a big stink in various New York publications alleging that Chester Arthur was born abroad as a British subject, much like those who are trying to say Obama is not a US citizen.   It wasn’t true.  Chester was born in Vermont.   But this scandal had the effect of keeping public attention off of the issue of whether Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject which would have made Chester a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.

Does any of this sound familiar?

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency.  By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen.  Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

His mother had lived in Canada with her husband and had her first child there.  This was a blatant lie.

CHESTER ARTHUR’S THIRD LIE

In the the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880.  In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland.  He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

This was another blatant lie.   His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23.   William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont.  The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.   So, a third blatant lie.

CONCLUSIONS

I think we’ve discovered a bit of esoteric history tonight.  I’ve not seen this analysis elsewhere.

It looks like Chester Arthur had something to hide.   He burned all of his papers (but the family Bible survived).   He moved his age back a year.  I think vanity is a poor excuse.   Only one year?  He lied about his mother’s time in Canada.  He lied about his father’s time in Canada.

By obscuring his parents’ past lives and time in Canada, he would have clouded all attempts at researching when his father naturalized.  Think about the time period.  He ran for Vice-President in 1880.  His father, being a law student, and moving his family to the United States, would have probably naturalized as soon as possible.  But it might not have been soon enough to make old Chester a natural born citizen.

As discussed above, the time frame between William Arthur’s five year residence requirement being met and the day Chester was born were probably very close.

Then when Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along basically demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States.  This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

William Arthur was probably not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur would have been a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Regardless, Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William.   Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track.  Back then it would have been impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 as a United States citizen.  Had anybody been suspicious, Arthur having changed his age by a year could have protected his eligibility.  And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Because Chester Arthur lied about his father, any precedent he might have set for Obama is nullified completely as it appears Chester Arthur may have been a usurper to the Presidency.   Eventually we will probably unearth William Arthur’s naturalization records.

While he did move around alot, he was a resident of Fairfield, Franklin County Vermont,  between 1829 when Chester was born, and 1832 when Malvina Almeda was born.  This is the most likely time period for his naturalization.  The official word from Franklin County was a fast, “We don’t have naturalization records for William Arthur.”

I have a strong feeling we’ve uncovered the truth about Chester Arthur.  Looks like he was the only ineligible President we’ve ever had.  And he got away with it through his lies.  But the light has a way of finding the darkness.

It’s no precedent to follow.

Leo C. Donofrio

This is an excerpt but if you go follow the link above to Leo’s site and this post you will find information about other US presidents who’s parents were not US citizens at birth and their eigibilty status and the methods of determining that. You will see it’s a well written article and he has certainly done his research.

Aside from that is anyone else bothered by the similarity in the story of President Arthur’s “cover-up” of the pertinent facts and the big Zero’s lame attempts to foil the truth?

When you are finished reading that interesting piece you should give the following one a read. It deals with the ramifications and consequences of a President Obama should he be determined to be ineligible for office. it gets worse the longer it goes on and would have a staggering effect on our country in many ways.

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=20210273

Here’s an excerpt for you but you will want to read the entire article to get the whole picture.

Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.

“Let’s assume he wasn’t born in the U.S.,” Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. “What’s the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can’t make him president. So what’s the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he’s aware he’s not a citizen, then it’s a perjured oath.”

Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.

“He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on (e)xecutive duty and done various things,” said Mr. Vieira. “The people that he’s put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped.”

Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama’s platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered.

“Let’s say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam,” said Mr. Vieira. “What’s the nation’s reaction to that? What’s going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it.”

Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama’s continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis.

“If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other side wanted him to produce the thing and he said ‘no,’ I would tell him, ‘you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to produce the document, or I’m resigning as your attorney,” said Mr. Vieira. “I don’t think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil litigation [and refused to do so].”

And rightly so in my opinion. it is an ethical issue as well as simple matter of respect for our country and it’s laws not to mention our Constitution. Mr. Obama has shown a distinct lack of respect as far as many are concerned, even for his own supporters who deserve to know there are no doubts and he is legitimate if that is the case.

Furthermore, what is it that he is hiding? What possible harm could come of letting the documentation be examined and verified by officials? If he meets the requirement then why not shout it from the mountain tops and remove all doubts?

Continuing to spend huge sums of money in an effort to avoid showing proof only makes it appear that the suspicions could be true. It would be in the best interest of the country and Mr. Obama to clear this matter up and the sooner the better. Unless, of course, he can’t.

Man up Mr. Obama. if you are qualified and eligible then prove it because this controversy will never go away until you do.

CQ

Read Full Post »

Apparently the earth is coming to it’s end! Got up this morning and turned on the news for a check of the weather and what did I see?

An actual MSM outlet (NBC) reporting that the Supreme Court will hold a conference today regarding the eligibility status of Obama! Of course they also said they it was “unlikely that the court will hear the case”.

I literally almost fell off the couch and I’m thankfull I was not sipping my morning coffee at the time! I screamed “Oh my God! It’s on the news!” while clutching my husband’s arm.

After months and months of people trying to get MSM to report what’s going on why now?

Easy answer is that they did not want to take the chance that they would be wrong and the Supreme Court might actually agree to hear the case. They would look like exactly what they are. Biased and in the tank. Can’t just let people find out they have not been doing their jobs. (Eyes rolling!) Like we haven’t seen that for the entire election cycle from the primaries up through the general election.

Most people have known for a long time they are not interested in doing their jobs or the truth. Only getting the Big Zero elected.

Some have even called them O’s 527 groups. That’s how obvious their bias and lack of integrity, proffessionalism and journalistic standards has been.

OMG! They are doing an in-depth report now as I type! Of course it’s a bunch of hooey! They are claiming the  COLB on his website is proof and that Hawaii “said” he was born there. Not true.

In fact Hawaii verified that he has a long form Birth Certificate, or Certificate of Live Birth, far different and more detailed than the Certification of Live Birth he has posted on Fight the Smears, that it is on file and they have seen it. They have not said that it verifies he was born there because by their own admssion they cannot divulge that information without either the permission of Obama or a court order requiring them to release it.

Actually, the state of Hawaii does not even accept the short form Certification of Live Birth for verification purpses in order to recieve state benifits because there is not sufficient information to verify squat on the document presented by Obama as “proof” of his citizenship status.

Also Hawaii allows for registration of births for a period of up to one year after the birth and because they allow persons born out of state and even out of the country to register birth records with the state and recieve, get this, a Certification of Live Birth rather than a Certificate of Birth which contains such information as actual place of birth, hospital, signature of witnesses, signature of attending physician and more. Don’t believe  me? Fine. Here it is from The State of Hawaii’s own website.

A. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country (applies to adopted children). 

 

B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.

 

C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8.  A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.

 

D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error.  See, for example, HRS 338-17.

 

E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.

 

F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program.  From its web site:  “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL

So there it is in black and white with links to the actual laws. As you can see the state even admits that the system is subject to errors and that even a person born out of the state or out of the United States can apply for and receive a  “Birth Certificate” in Hawaii. It does not prove they were “natural born citizens” of either Hawaii or the US. In fact ONLY the information contained on the long form Certificate of Live Birth can verify that. Apparently there is a vast difference between the Certificate and a Certification.

For a more detailed report on this and why it matters read this post from American Thinker.

A. Associated Press reported about a statement of Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Fukino, “State declares Obama birth certificate genuine.”

B. That October 31, 2008 statement says that Dr. Fukino “ha[s] personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.  That statement does not, however, verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, and as explained above, under Hawaiian policies and procedures it is quite possible that Hawaii may have a birth record of a person not born in Hawaii.  Unlikely, but possible.

C.  The document that the Obama campaign released to the public is a certified copy of Obama’s birth record, which is not the best evidence since, even under Hawaiian law, the original vault copy is the better evidence.  Presumably, the vault record would show whether his birth was registered by a hospital in Hawaii.

D. Without accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, we nevertheless know that some people have gone to great lengths, even in violation of laws, rules and procedures, to confer the many benefits of United States citizenship on themselves and their children.  Given the structure of the Hawaiian law, the fact that a parent may register a birth, and the limited but inherent potential for human error within the system, it is possible that a parent of a child born out-of-state could have registered that birth to confer the benefits of U.S. citizenship, or simply to avoid bureaucratic hassles at that time or later in the child’s life. 

1. We don’t know whether the standards of registration by the Department of Health were more or less stringent in 1961 (the year of Obama’s birth) than they are today.  However, especially with post-9/11 scrutiny, we do know that there have been instances of fraudulent registrations of foreign births as American births.

2. From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals:  “An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children.”

3.  Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the “ease” of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently.  From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official:  “Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently.”

The American Thinker article written by Joe the Farmer is well written and researched with all the links embedded so you can go check them out for yourself and it covers much more than I have written here. Go check it out.
Then if you still need more convincing read this piece at ireport wich effectively de-bunks the de-bunkers. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768

And finally if you have any doubts that O and his cronies have been working to get around this requirement for quite some timecheck out this 26 page pdf file written by a Chicago lawyer with ties to Obama that outlines why they feel this constitutional requirement is “outdated” and should be abolished. 

Is the requirement outdated? I’m not qualified to answer that. Maybe it is maybe not. Maybe it should be axed or maybe not. Regardless it IS the law as it stands now and therfore it MUST be followed and respected as such.

Why has The One spent over $800,000 on lawyers fighting this. Why won’t he simply show the proof instead of hiding behind technicalities like lack of standing and lack of an established proceedure requiring verification?

That’s right he’s NOT arguing that he is in fact “natural born” but rather his lawyers are arguing that the voters do not have standing or an established method requiring him to show verification and that the voters can’t show injury that would result byhis taking office if in fact he is ineligible.

I’d say that the voters ultimitely have standing and the injury would be the fact that anything he does, any international treaties or agreements he might sign or any person he appoints would be illigitimate if he were in fact proven ineligible.

Not to mention all those voters who sent him $600+ million dollars for his campaign who, were he proved to be ineligible, would have been frauded by a candidate who had no business soliciting funds for a campaign for an office he could not legally hold. I’d say that would qualify as standing and proof of injury in my book but we’ll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says.

Let’s just pray, send positive thoughts and vibes or whatever your personal preference might be that the Courtin it’s wisdom will decide to hear the case and judge it on it’s merits rather than do the easy thing and not “rock the boat” out of fear and tredipation.

Our country, it’s citizens and our Laws deserve better than that. at the very least they deserve respect from the man who might be sworn in to the highest office in the land and would be sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution as well as all of our laws.

Seriously, the Court needs to hear this case if only to set the minds of voters atease and to establish asystem for verification or vetting of all future candidates once and for all.

There was a candidate on the ballot in 5 states, Roger Calero, born in Nicaragua, who was a candidate for president of the United States for the Socialist Workers Partythat no one bothered to vett properly either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero

Apparently he was on the ballot in 5 states in the 2008 election and in 9 states in 2004 in spite of the fact he was born in Nicaragua and therefore is not eligible for the office. How can this happen? The Supreme Court must hear this case and provide some insight or solution to prevent this in the future or abolish the requirement altogether.

Finally Mr. Obama must show the American voters he respects them, their country, it’s laws, it’s courts and it’s Constitution and he must step up to the plate and prove his eligibility if he can do so. He should do so out of respect but also because it is not fair to leave the voters with these doubts. It will not just go away and his presidency will never be considered legitimate unless he does this.

What do you say Mr. Obama? Please be a man and show the integrity required by the office you seek. If indeed you are “natural born” and eligible then what do you have to lose?

CQ

Read Full Post »

Proposition 8 passed in California and the resulting chaos:

First I have to say that it really makes me angry that people actually think it’s any of their business what other people do in their lives, bedrooms and marriages. I don’t see how Jane and Sue getting hitched threatens or lessens in any way my marriage or anyone elses’. It’s their business and should stay that way.

Regardless though of how one feels about gay marriage, for or against, the really disgusting thing is that they are using the Constitution of California to make discrimination legal and that is just wrong.

Constitutions (both State and Federal) are documents that are created for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of individual citizens and preventing discrimination against them. To use or misuse these documents to legalize discrimination and take away rights from ANYBODY is morally and legally wrong. I’m not a lawyer but it seems completely against the intent of said documents. If it’s not illegal it should be.

Our Constitution ( Federal and the individual States’) say in no uncertain terms that all people are created equal and as such have certain rights. No it does not say the right to marry heterosexually or otherwise.

However to use the constitution to legally discriminate against any group or individual is a complete and utter perversion of the document, it’s purpose and intent.

To use public funds for a vote to take away rights from any group or idividual is ridiculous and should be a criminal offense. Discrimination is wrong. Period.

I’ve heard all the arguments for and against and honestly I still don’t understand why gay and lesbian people wanting the same rights and benefits as any other couple should concern or threaten anyone else. If you don’t like it don’t do it and ignore those who do. Why do people think they should tell others how to live?

If we use laws to take away rights of gays and lesbians today then who will we go after tomorrow or the next day? Maybe next they will decide that women should not have the right to vote or work or maybe hispanics should not have the right to have their relatives live with them or who knows what is next? Where does it stop?

Gay and lesbian rights are human rights and you cannot use the tools of empowerment and protection of those rights to deny them and call it fair, just or even sane.

On the other side of the spectrum are the folks who voted against this “law” and are now justifiably angry that it passed who are not just protesting and writting to their lawmakers. Now they have begun “outing” and “punishing” those who they find voted for it and contributed money to the cause. Boycotts and harassment are in full swing.

Yes it is their right to boycott businesses if they feel like doing so. It is not right however to “out” people that supported the measure and harass them, try to get them fired, ruin their lives and reputations for excersising their right to vote. Although I don’t support the measure or the fact it was even put on the ballot the fact remains that in our society voting is a right and is a private matter.

These people supported this measure for whatever reasons they have and as it was on the ballot they had the choice and the right to vote for or against it. That is their right and it is supposed to be private and it is just as wrong to persecute them for voting their consciences as it is for them to discriminate against gays and lesbians. You don’t right one wrong by committing another one.

That is violating the rights of those voters. We are all free in this country to vote our conscience be it right or wrong. Unfortunately there is no rule of thumb that a proposed piece of legislation must be morally and legally correct before being placed on the ballot. It’s placed there, voted upon and if it is proven to be illegal or wrong it will have to be legally overturned. It’s called due process.

No where does it say find out who supported it and make their lives a living hell, expose them to public shame and humiliation and destroy all rules and laws regarding privacy and voters’ rights in the name of your cause. You take it back to court and fight an unjust law the leagl way. You fight bigotry and injustice not with more of the same but with legal means and with education not fear and hate.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

CQ

Read Full Post »

Cross posted from Uppity Woman’s blog:

Ludicrous Race Card Of The Week Award: Calling Obama a Socialist is “Racist”. Nice Try. No Cigar.

Well, yet one more Obama news guy (surprise!), who is an Obama sycophant named Lewis Diuguid  (ironically rronounced Do Good),  has weighed in with the infamous

Race Card.

It is now decreed that calling Barack Obama’s plans “Socialist” is Racist.  He said it’s a racist “Code Word”.

No kidding. You can’t make this shit up. 

McCain and Palin should be ”Ashamed of themselves”.  In other words: Just shut up Or You are Gonna Get The Race Card!

Let’s see, now. At this point, the only “racist” thing left for McCain and Palin to do is: Inhale and Exhale.

Inhaling and exhaling is racist. Stop this right now all you people who don’t support Comrade Obama!

So, calling someone’s platform Socialist is racist. Who knew??????

All righty then.

I started to surf the net to find out who the prominent Socialists were. You know, so I could point out the black ones. I tossed in Marxist and Communist, etc.,  just to preempt the next Race Card. After all, they are all part of Barack Obama’s endorsement package these days. Let’s face it. They were all the same anti-Democracy theories, one  laughingly “improving” on the other.

It all started with the French, you know.

Let’s see, there’s this guy Henri de Saint-Simon. He was this French Utopian Socialist Thinker. Here he is. Ugly as hell but looking kind of…well…white.

Ok maybe they weren’t referring to him. How about that guy Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Socialist philosopher and anarchist. His most notable idea: Property is theft. Here he is:

 

Dang if Proudhon doesn’t look like just another crazy white guy to me. Ok, maybe they weren’t referring to him. Because he’s definitely  Not. Black.

Let’s see…….ok here’s a guy from Wales named Robert Owen. He was one of the founders of Socialism. Here he is. Dang he’s a nutty white guy too!  Not. Black.

Scratching my head here….. Gosh, even the great Romantic Poet Yeats was a Socialist. But he was white too.

Ok Ok, Gotta stick Karl in here because, besides bouncing off the walls, he bounced off of Owen’s Utopia  idea.  Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto. Hereeeeeeeeeee’ssssss Karllllllll, looking like he carries fleas. Karl was definitely  Not. Black

There’s Fredrick Engels. Hey, maybe he wasn’t white. Ooops. He was. Seriously  Not. Black.

Ok here’s Benito Mussolini the black Italian nutcase. Ooops, wrong again!  Not. Black.

Ok, Ok, I’m not going to give up. I have just GOT to PROVE that calling someone a Socialist is Racist.

I know! How about Stalin!

Dang! White! Good lookin’! But definitely  Not. Black.

Ok let’s reach a little. Um ….OH! I know! How about Lenin!??

Aw Geeze, White again!

I can’t find a single famous black Socialist! Dang!

I know Que, worshipped by so many of Obama’s supporters, is definitely not black. See? Here he is, looking all macho on his horse.  Not. black.

Now I know that Chairman Mao wasn’t black and North Korea’s Dear Leader isn’t black either. Neither is Fidel Castro. Definitely.  Not. Black.

Adolf was Not. Black. Although he was certainly charismatic wasn’t he?

So, could somebody please tell me how it is that calling Barack Obama a Socialist is a Racist thing to say? I’ll wait…….

Thanks!

Congratulations, Mr. Diuguid!!!! You win the Ludicrous Race Card of the Week Award! I mean don’t let the fact that Barack has been endorsed by the previously dead American Socialst, Marxist/Leninist and Communist parties stop you from pulling that old card, ya hear????

I mean, just because he wants to redistribute wealth and ran in 1996 on the Marxist AKA “New Party” ticket is no darned good reason to call him a Socialist either, right?  Just because millions of immigrants came here to the USA to get away from most of the guys mentioned above is no reason to be concerned, right?

That would be Racist!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »