UPDATE: President Chester Arthur WAS the original usurper

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 »

This is NOT the first time this country has faced this issue

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 »

More flying monkeys…

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.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html

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. 

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf

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 »

UPDATE: JUDGE DISMISSES BERG V. OBAMA

News on the Berg lawsuit. The latest update from America’s Right is not the news I hoped for but it does bring up some interesting points. If one voter, or all voters, do not have standing who would? Why is there a constitutional requirement if we have no standing to ask for the law to be upheld?

I am very offended at the suggestion that the people have no right to expect their leaders or future leaders are in compliance with constitutional requirements. More on that later and besides I’m sure Berg will appeal and we will eventually get to the truth once and for all be it before or after the election. Mark my words even if Obama gets in office, should it be proved he is ineligible there will be legal consequences. We will not alow an unqualified president to stay seated. He will be impeached if this turns out to be the case.

 CQ

 http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/lawsuit-against-obama-dismissed-from.html

The order and memorandum came down at approximately 6:15 p.m. on Friday. Philip Berg’s lawsuit challenging Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States had been dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that the Philadelphia attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania lacked standing.

Surrick, it seemed, was not satisfied with the nature of evidence provided by Berg to support his allegations.

Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.

A judge’s attitude toward the factual foundation of a plaintiff’s claims is an essential factor in understanding just who indeed has standing to sue. The question running to the heart of the standing doctrine is whether or not the plaintiff indeed has a personal stake in the outcome of the otherwise justiciable matter being adjudicated. As has been discussed before many times here at America’s Right, a plaintiff wishing to have standing to sue must show (1) a particularized injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress.

In this case, Judge Surrick’s attitude toward the evidence presented by Berg to support his allegations figures in heavily because, while there is a three-pronged test to standing in itself, there is no definitive test by which the court can determine whether a certain harm is enough to satisfy the first element of that three-pronged test by showing true injury-in-fact. Traditionally, it hasn’t taken much to satisfy the need for an injury-in-fact, but as the plaintiff’s claimed injury is perceived as being more remote, more creative, or more speculative, the injury-in-fact requirement becomes more difficult to satisfy.

As it were, much of Berg’s basis for injury-in-fact could be considered threatened injury–he felt that the country was at risk for “voter disenfranchisement” and that America was certainly headed for a “constitutional crisis”—and, while threatened injury can certainly be injury enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact element, such satisfaction depends upon the threat being perceived by the judge as being not too creative, speculative or remote.

When it came to Philip Berg’s personal stake in the matter at hand, Surrick compared his action with those of Fred Hollander—the man who, earlier this year, sued Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire on grounds that, born in the Panama Canal Zone, he was not a natural born citizen—and held that Berg’s stake “is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters.” The harm cited by Berg, Surrick wrote, “is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.”

So, who does have standing? According to the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, that’s completely up to Congress to decide.
Judge the 34-page memorandum. In one such instance, Surrick noted that Berg had misinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in asking the court to permit him to amend his complaint. The first amended complaint was deemed admitted by Judge Surrick on grounds that, under FRCP 15(a), a party can amend once so long as it’s done before being served with a responsive pleading and that [just as I had not-so-confidently suggested] the motion to dismiss filed on Sept. 24 by Obama and the DNC was not a responsive pleading. Because Berg perceived the motion to dismiss as a responsive pleading and was waiting on the court to grant or deny the motion for leave to amend, he did not serve the additional defendants added in the amended complaint. This, too, was noted by Surrick.Berg’s attempts to distinguish his own case from Hollanderwere deemed by Surrick to be “[h]is most reasonable arguments,” but his arguments citing statutory authority were said by the judge to be a venture “into the unreasonable” and were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” All in all, the judge wrote, it was the satisfaction of the injury-in-fact requirement which was the problem. Berg’s harm was simply too intangible.

Intangible or not, Berg said, we have a case where “an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”In fact, the motion to dismiss and motion for protective order filed by Barack Obama and the DNC were not only proper but also an expected maneuver by the defense attorneys. The very idea behind such motions is to foster the adjudication of the matter with minimal damage to the named defendants, and both are measures used more often than not. Still, Berg believes there is more to it.

“While the procedural evasions may be proper,” Berg said, “it only makes me believe more that we were correct in the first place, that Obama does not have the documentation we’ve requested.”

 

While the evidence presented by Berg was largely circumstantial, the attorney says that he is learning more about this narrative–and about the Democratic Party nominee for president–with each passing day. For example, regardless of whether it could be attached to the proceeding as it goes through the appellate process, Berg said, he is in possession of a native-language audiotape of Sarah Obama, Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother, stating on the day of the last presidential debate that her famous grandson was indeed born in Kenya, and that she was present in the hospital for his birth.”The tape is in the native language there,” Berg said. “I will release it as soon as translation is confirmed by affidavit, and we are waiting on affidavits from contacts over here and in Kenya.”

Berg, nonetheless, is disappointed by Surrick’s decision and will issue a press release today detailing his plans to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.

“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,” Berg said. “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

 

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.

 

…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

 

Read Full Post »

UPDATE on Michelle Obama; Did She Really Call API?

 

Well there is an update. Supposedly African Press International has and is planning to release the tape of the alleged phone call.  I say we’ll have to wait and see.

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/recordings-and-information-leading-to-recent-api-story-on-michelle-obamas-telephone-call-is-now-being-cleared-for-release/

Recordings and information leading to recent API story on Michelle Obama’s telephone call is now being cleared for release

Posted by africanpress on October 17, 2008

API is disturbed by the way many have reacted to the story on Mrs Obama’s call. Many have shown us by the way they have behaved towards API that they only think of their own interests because they have demanded that the audio recordings should be released immediately. We understand that the tapes should be released, but those who have demanded the release of the tapes seem not take into account that API may become a suing target.

The Recordings:

API has recordings of the conversation between API and Mrs Obama (Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: “My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks”, on a direct telephone to API., and we confirm that the audio will be released to the public. In the last 24 hours, API has been consulting legal advisers on the way forward in order to avoid being sued by the Obama camp. API has realised that the contents of the tapes if made public may change the political atmosphere in America for ever, especially in the next few days.

Due to enormous reactions received, API now understands the impact of the statements made by Mrs Obama. The American people have reacted in a way we in API would never have expected.

Many have question why Mrs Obama would choose a little known online media group instead of the American media. API was chosen because of a Nairobi contact that did not like the way API was covering Barack Obama using information collected from American media outlets. The Nairobi contact prevailed upon Mrs Obama to talk to API.

The only thing API may have done wrong is not informing Mrs Obama that the conversation was being recorded. This is why it is taking time to release the recording while consulting a legal team because API wants to be legally safe from any Obama camp law suit.

The US Media Outlets:

Since the release of Mrs Obama story, many US media outlets have insisted that API should release the recordings made when Mrs Obama spoke with API. We understand the importance of the recordings in our possession and yet the first thing we are thinking of is not simply to make them public because groups are pressurising API to do so. The release of the information will be done, because we know we have Mrs Obama on tape, but API must do it in a way that does not put API in an embarrassing legal situation.

Die-hard Obama supporters:

A number of Americans who are die-hard Obama followers have tried their best to intimidate API using all kinds of threatening methods when they call in and when they email us. They are implying that API is planning to destroy Obama’s chances to become the next US President. API does not have a direct interest in the US Presidential elections and we want Obama supporters to understand that. However, when someone who may become the next first lady makes such comments as in the story we have published, the public have the right to know. Intimidation directed to the publishers of the story is not the answer.

The delay to make public the recordings is expected to give time to Mrs Obama to come clean and tell the American people that her comments were not meant to harm anyone  but that she was reacting to the media pressure on her husband. She should also come out and tell the American people that she will not discriminate those who are not Obama fanatics if she becomes the first lady.

Die-hard Mcain supporters:

Those who do not support Obama are actively pushing for the release of the recordings also, and we understand them very well. In many telephone conversations with them we, however, get disturbed when we realise that most of them want the recordings to be released because they want to use it to stop Senator Obama from being elected President. They state clearly that if the story is true and released now, the contents will safe America from a constitutional crisis that may come if things come out after the elections that proves Obama was adopted by a foreigner, thus, disqualifying him from the Presidency.

Some readers:

Some have questioned why API has its base in Norway. Online News Media can be based anywhere in the world. With the Internet age, a news network can have people anywhere in the world. API’s news correspondents – 19 of them are real and based in the African Continent. API is a solid Daily Online News Channel and this Obama story will not change that.

Questioning API on being based in Norway:

There is nothing wrong having African Press International based in Norway and the channel run by Africans from the African Continent. Even Kenya’s present Prime Minister Raila Odinga lived in Norway for some time before joining the Kenya government.

API has also been accused because of the timing to release Mrs Obama story. Some even discus small issues as to why API telephone number starts with 00, and spellings in the article. This to us in API sounds ridiculous.

The important thing to be concerned about is how API obtained the story and how genuine it is. The second thing is to exercise understanding and to respect why there is a delay in releasing the recordings. API is not saying there are no recordings, but it is important to take serious API’s concerns on a possible suit if the tapes are not handled carefully.

API is not out to convince the American public of anything. We do not want to influence the outcome of the US Presidential elections. API got a true story and published it. The fact that the story has caused a stir was unexpected, but that does not mean API must rush in a manner that will cause problems to itself, just to satisfy those who want the audio tapes so badly.

When the legal concerns are cleared, which is happening in a short while, API will make public all the recordings available. This will also include comments, not yet published, which will most certainly put the Obama Campaign spokesperson who had dismissed the story off balance.

Even if our recordings or any other recordings had surfaced after the elections and  if the contents were damaging to the elected person that still could have caused any elected president to vacate the White House. We all know that the tapes released in the US in 1974 forced President Richard Nixon out of office. The truth is the truth. The tapes during Nixon time did not lie.

The same here. The recordings that API will release soon will not lie to the American people. Most probably, it will change the political landscape, something the Americans should start getting prepared to face.

Published by Chief Editor Korir

African Press International – API

 

If they really have a tape and can verify it is Michelle Obama what does it all mean? Is it more eveidence of Burg’s allegations? If they have it I hope they release it soon!

CQ

Read Full Post »