Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘President’

Well we knew this was coming! Found a link to this over at New Hampster’s site:

 http://www.partizane.com/node/775

and I thought it was important enough to spread far and wide. People need to know what is going on. Take a look:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:hj5ih.txt.pdf

 

IA

111

 

 

TH

CONGRESS

1

 

 

ST SESSION H. J. RES. 5

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal

the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation

on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

J

 

 

 

ANUARY

6, 2009

Mr. S

 

 

 

ERRANO

introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

 

 

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment,

thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms

an individual may serve as President.

1

 

 

 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2

 

 

 

of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3

 

 

 

(two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4

lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con

 

 

 

5

stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6

 

 

 

intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7

 

 

 

ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ5.IH HJ5

 

 

 

 

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS

2

 

 

 

HJ 5 IH

1

 

 

 

States within seven years after the date of its submission

2

 

 

 

for ratification:

3

 

 

 

‘‘ARTICLE

4

 

 

 

‘‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Con5

stitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’’.
 

 

So it didn’t take long at all for them to get started on their wet dream of having Obama be president forever did it? I think people need to know about this and we need to make it clear to our lawmakers that we DO NOT approve of this attempt at turning our country into a full blown dictatrship! We DO NOT want to abolish term limits and as a matter of fact I would LOVE to see some term limits imposed on members of Congress as well!

We are fed up with Career Politicians who stay on the payroll and do nothing for the citizens. Fooey to these people who sit there year after year collecting government paychecks AND lots of perks and contributions from lobbyists and special interest groups!

But most important of all WE DO NOT WANT TERM LIMITS FOR THE PRESIDENCY TO BE DONE AWAY WITH!  There are/were very valid reasons and arguments for term limits the main one beiong that we are a democracy not a monarchy. If we wanted a king we would have chosen to do that a long time ago. Our founders wanted no kings, no royalty just the process of electing our leaders and the knowledge that all natural born citizens were eligible for the job. Allowing any elected leader to take more than two terms is completely against the idea of a free and democratic society where no one is automatically entitled.

I saw some idiots were going on about how they could handle a dictatorship as long as Obama was in charge! Yeah! They actually call themselves democrats  Americans and spew this crap!

Perhaps the average Obamabot likes the idea of being told what to do and how to do it and not having to think for themselves but the rest of us would lie to keep the democratic process that we have used for over two hundred years thank you very much! Truly these idiots have no clue and it would serve them right if they were to get their wish. However the rest of us do not want to live like that just to teach them a lesson.

We cannot allow this to happen!

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 »

Today in the Wall Street Journal there is an Op-Ed piece from Hillary Clinton that shows us how if we had listened to her this situation might not be so bad right now for the markets or for the homeowners involved.

Unlike Obama or McCain she had a concrete plan that would have stabilized the mortgage market by a measurable degree. Set up a Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help home owners refinance their homes at a fixed rate they can afford allowing millions more to stay in their homes and keeping foreclosure rates lower and allowing the markets time to adjust and correct. Sounded like a good plan to me when she first proposed it almost two years ago and it still sounds like a good plan to me now.

 

Hillary Clinton: Let’s Keep People in Their Homes

By Hillary Rodham Clinton

There is a broad consensus that Congress must act to stave off deeper turmoil on Wall Street. Irrespective of the final agreement yet to be reached, there are several principles that must be part of a broader reform effort that begins this week and continues in the coming months.

This is not just a financial crisis; it’s an economic crisis. Therefore, the solutions we pursue cannot simply stabilize the markets. We must also deal with the interconnected economic challenges that set the stage for this crisis — and reverse the failed policies that allowed a potential crisis to become a real one.

First, we must address the skyrocketing rates of mortgage defaults and foreclosures that have buffeted the economy and ignited the credit crisis. Two million homeowners carry mortgages worth more than their homes. They hold $3 trillion in mortgage debt. Nearly three million adjustable-rate mortgages are scheduled for a rate increase in the next two years. Another wave of foreclosures looms.

I’ve proposed a new Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), to launch a national effort to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. The original HOLC, launched in 1933, bought mortgages from failed banks and modified the terms so families could make affordable payments while keeping their homes. The original HOLC returned a profit to the Treasury and saved one million homes. We can save roughly three times that many today. We should also put in place a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and freeze rate hikes in adjustable-rate mortgages. We’ve got to stem the tide of failing mortgages and give the markets time to recover.

The time for ideological, partisan arguments against these actions is over. For years, the calls to provide borrowers an affordable opportunity to avoid foreclosure as a means of preventing wider turmoil were dismissed as government intrusion into the private marketplace. My proposals over the past two years were derided as too much, too soon. Now we are forced to reckon with too little, too late.

As a result, the home-mortgage crisis slowly eroded the value of debt instruments upon which Wall Street firms were depending. That is how this house of borrowed cards began to fall. If we do not take action to address the crisis facing borrowers, we’ll never solve the crisis facing lenders. These problems go hand in hand. And if we are going to take on the mortgage debt of storied Wall Street giants, we ought to extend the same help to struggling, middle-class families.

Second, American taxpayers should have a voice and a stake in the resolution of this market crisis. If the Treasury proposal is enacted in its current form, the American government would assume enough financial risk to become the majority shareholder in the companies rescued by taxpayer dollars.

The American people are bearing the risk and therefore deserve to reap the rewards of a shared equity model. And mortgage securities bought by taxpayers must be valued accurately at prices disclosed in real time, with checks and reporting requirements to prevent abuse.

Third, taxpayers are being asked to bear an unparalleled degree of financial risk. We cannot allow taxpayers to take on this burden so that Wall Street and the Bush administration can hit the “reset button.” This historic intervention demands a historic shift in priorities: an end to the broken culture on Wall Street, and the broken economic policies in Washington.

Corporations that will benefit must be held accountable, not only to large shareholders but also to the American people, who are rightly tired of business as usual: short-term profit at the expense of long-term viability; lax oversight and regulation; obscene bonuses and golden parachutes regardless of performance; reckless risk-taking that has placed the markets in jeopardy; rewards for foreclosing on middle-class families and selling mortgages designed to fail; and outsourcing good jobs to serve short-term stock prices instead of America’s long-term economic health.

This is a sink-or-swim moment for America. We cannot simply catch our breath. We’ve got to swim for the shores. We must address the conditions that set the stage for the turmoil unfolding on Wall Street, or we will find ourselves lurching from crisis to crisis. Just as Wall Street must once again look further than the quarterly report, our nation must as well.

Mrs. Clinton, a Democrat, is a senator from New York.

You know there is a lot of talk and anger (rightly so) about the bailing out of the big Wall Street Investors and the irresponsible people who took loans they could not afford. The fact is a lot of the blame here also lies with some lenders who out of greed made loans that they should have known were high risk at best.

The fact remains though that not every family facing foreclosure is in this situation because they were irresponsible or because they fraudulently acquired credit they could not afford. Are there some who did that? Yes. Are all of them in this situation for those reasons? No.

A lot of people went out to buy homes and they could afford a payment and the maintenance on said home. They work hard and pay their bills like most everybody but then the lenders said “With rates this low you can afford so much more and you can just re-finance before the rate goes up.” And then oil went to record breaking highs and the prices of gasoline and groceries and heating bills went higher and higher. People who could afford their payments suddenly found themselves in a crunch.

Enter the lenders who expected to win either way and the rates go up, the payments go up and with the other expenses rising people began feeling more than a crunch. They were now caught in a vise. The lenders figured either way they would win because the families would either continue to pay with the higher interest rates or they would re-finance giving the lenders another chance to make a nice chunk of change for that.

What they didn’t count on was all the other economic factors, the inflation, the Wall Street crowd suddenly waking up to the fact that some of the loans that were packaged and sold were not going to pan out and should never have been made in the first place. Then suddenly we have a tightening of credit standards (better late than never?) and the people who were told to refinance suddenly can’t qualify.

The payments continue to go up, other expenses go up and the number of options available to them goes down. It seems to me that the average, working, responsible homeowner is now caught in a very bad situation not (at least not entirely) of their own making.

Now enter the Congress and Bush who decide we need to stop the bleeding in the market but where is the help for the homeowner who wants to be responsible? They want to keep thier homes and pay for them.

Look at it this way if we do not help those homeowners by giving them an option that allows them to stay in their homes we have more foreclosures and the very families that get ousted will now have to spend the money they would have paid on a mortgage on rent! They will not be better off in fact they will be far worse off and at the mercy of the rental market. At that point they no longer have any chance of hedging against inflation in their housing. They are at the completely and truly screwed. They will still be buying a house just for someone else.

Maybe there are some who willingly entered into risky deals that should then pay the price for bad decision making but we cannot hold every borrower responsible for the rouges. It is in our best interest to allow as many people to stay in their homes as we can and have them paying those mortgages rather than turning homeowners into a money machine for the investor class and thereby increasing the size of the lower-middle and lower classes. Rather than lifting them up and promoting healthy economic growth it will simply place a lower ceiling on it. Rather than empower the average American it will empower the wealthy investors who need no help to grow.

Hillary knows what we need to do to turn this crisis around and she knows how deep it runs for all those involved. She’s not just worried about Wall Street and the markets. She’s worried about the average Joe or Jane and she’s working to see that they don’t get forgotten.

Obama has yet to come up with any plan economic or otherwise that he didn’t steal from someone wiser and more savy. It’s what he does. He plagerizes speeches and he takes others’ ideas, tweaks them just a bit and tries to grab the credit. This guy wouldn’t know a solution if it hit him in the ass!

He’s not the President but he plays one and he just knows he could do it! “Come on! Howard, Donna and Nancy promised it was MY turn!”

Can we please have Hillary back now?

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

I haven’t watched The View for quite a while now. Since the became all about the Obama love. However since it is Bill I’ll make an exception.

In Part 1 he talks about whether or not Hillary wanted to be VP, complex reasons that people vote and the need to respect that as well as sexism in society and in the election. You only have to listen to him for a quick minute and you suddenly remember why they call him the Big Dawg! This man could talk for days and you’d be content to listen.

Part 2 is all about the economy, the mortgage crisis and the bailout that is in the works. Bottom line is he thinks this is necessary but not enough. We should have gone with Hillary’s plan to creat a system to refinance peoples’ mortgages so they could afford them and the end result could actually have made a profit in the long run. Boy that hillary is smart. Can we have her back now?

Part 3 he says Barbara reminded him that a year ago he said McCain would be the republican nominee because he is the only republican that could win. He also says Obama will win but in the same breath said wonderful things about John McCain. Hmmmm. I have to wonder what there is that he didn’t say but might have wanted to? Plus you gotta say he brings out the best in people. Whoopie even wore a dress!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »