I said many times during the US election that what was needed after the divisiveness of the Bush years was a time of reflexion, a time for people to temper frayed feelings, not to elect someone equally controversial. What has occurred (with the complicity of the adoring liberal mainstream media) is that the American people have chosen to swing to the opposite end of the political spectrum and appoint the most liberal senator ever to run for president.
What you have now is a situation where the Right will attack the new president with the same ferocity which the Left used on Bush. Is this what the US needed at this time? More of the same?
Here it is then: Item #1 on the agenda: The Verification of Obama's birth.
It is a controversy that has plagued Camp O and something they thought they had disposed of. Instead it is gathering steam. Lawsuits are being filed to force Obama to prove his birth.
This matter would be easy for Obama to clarify but for some incomprehensible reason, Obama refuses to let people verify his original birth certificate. By law, only the person affected may grant permission for his birth certificate to be examined but Obama just simply will not do it. The question is why?
So that leads to suspicions, rightly, that Obama is hiding something. Perhaps he was not born in the US and therefore cannot be president. As long as the question remains unanswered, unequivocally by say, a court of law, the controversy will continue to build. For many people, it is a question of constitutionality, even Obama supporters must concede that. If there is nothing to hide then dispel the rumours once and for all and get on with the business of governing. Be different, you preached "Change" then do it.
A YouTube video recently about Obama's fake certificate received one million hits in 24 hours. This one below is by a Dr. Rod Polarik explaining how the fake Obama birth certificate was produced. You be the judge.
Stellenbosch: Verraad teen wittes en Afrikaans
-
Dit is 'n Bybelse waarheid dat wanneer verraad gepleeg word, die haan drie
keer kraai. Ek het op 7 en 23 deser op Praag geskryf oor die raadsbesluit
van ...
26 minutes ago
3 Opinion(s):
ABC NEWS GETS THE DONOFRIO SCOTUS STORY WRONG
Posted in Uncategorized on December 4, 2008 by naturalborncitizen
Below is the text of a letter Leo Donofrio just sent to ABC News:
Dear Mr. Terry Owens and ABC News.
The story you printed today with the headline, “Supreme Court to Decide Obama Citizenship” is riddled with errors. Allow me to correct the record for you. I have said in my law suit that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii, so I have no idea why your story makes it seem as if my law suit is centered on the issue of where Obama was born. You wrote,
“The President-elect has maintained he was born in the United States.”
The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen - at birth - a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”. Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.
Furthermore, the case is scheduled for conference of all nine Justices, not eight. You should correct that.
And your reporting, which could have been complete with a simple phone call to the Public Information Office, is also deficient in that it wasn’t Justice Thomas alone who distributed the case for conference of December 5, 2008. That was a decision taken after consideration of the full Court.
There are two docket entries for Nov. 19. One of them shows that Justice Thomas referred the case to the full court. The other indicates that the full court distributed the case for conference of Dec. 5. I suggest you call Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Public Information Officer for the United States Supreme Court. She will set you and your story straight.
The case could have easily been denied after Justice Thomas referred it to the full court. There was no requirement that it be distributed for conference. In fact, the normal procedure in referred applications involves no public mention of such cases until after the full Court has taken some action. There is an official Supreme Court Publication entitled
“A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States”
You may find it here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf
It will guide you with accuracy to the actions involved in the case you are reporting upon. On page 3, it states:
“The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.“
Now go back and check the docket url for my case.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
Another misleading element of your story is the headline. The Supreme Court will be focused on the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President, not on his citizenship status. Just being a “Citizen” is not enough to be President. I have no doubt, and I’m sure the Supreme Court concurs, that Obama is a United States citizen.
But the Constitution draws a direct distinction between “Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens”. Citizens may be Senators and Representatives, but it takes something else to be President. So, your headline is wrong as well as your story.
If you would like to respond to this letter, which I have just published in my blog about the case, feel free to do so and I will publish your response as is.
My blog URL is http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Yesterday, a reporter from the Kansas City Star wrote an equally misleading report about my case. After readers of this blog confronted him, he had the decency to call me and apologize for the wrong treatment my case received in his report. We struck up a good conversation and I gave him proper respect for his admission. I am here to talk any time you like. I understand the concepts are technical and non-lawyers have problems with them.
Regards,
Leo C. Donofrio
How to get the Vault Birth Certificate of the President Elect
Over a dozen lawsuits have been filed most of which are hinged on forcing the President Elect to show his “Vault Birth Certificate”. So far, the lower courts ruled that none of the plaintiffs, as US citizens, have “standing” to enforce the Constitution, as they can not prove harm. State officials take the stance that checking eligibility for presidency is not their duty. One Elector made a public statement to the effect that the current administration had ample opportunity, so he is counting on them to check the eligibility of the President Elect. In the meantime, the White House would not touch the issue with a ten-foot pole. The mainstream media largely avoids the topic or dismissing it as fanciful conspiracy theory, instead of questioning why the President Elect spent hundreds of thousands on legal fees to keep it secret. Even most conservative talk show hosts, with few exceptions, avoid the issue or touch it on surface only. There is silence from the GOP as well.
In many states one must show a valid birth certificate for fishing or driver’s license, or for receiving social security benefits, but a simple statement of eligibility by the candidate is sufficient to be president, similarly to a “no-doc real estate loan”.
Suggestion: As US citizens have no “standing” because they can not prove harm, let’s ask one of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners to file a lawsuit. The courts have been enthusiastically granting these foreign dudes “standing” at US courts. A good attorney could claim that the President Elect appears to be less determined to dismantle GITMO than promised in his campaign, thereby causing irreparable harm to the terrorist. No doubt the court will order the “Vault Birth Certificate” promptly.
Some links:
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/26/game-boys-at-gitmo/
http://usatodayadforobamarecords.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-is-media-silent-on-obama-birth.html
Thanks for your very informative posts Ted and Anon.The mind boggles that this has not been dealt with before entering any public office.
Post a Comment