“Birthers”, you can’t live with them and you can’t shoot em and they certainly aren’t going away anytime soon.
Every single legal lawsuit, every single request to have Obama provide this “long form” could had been rectified and the matter put to rest that would have shown that the “birthers” were wrong or misguided or even politically motivated if Obama just release the document in question.
It begs the question, why go to the extent and legal costs, negative publicity and further fueling the controversy if Obama did not have anything to hide?
The answer is “he certainly has something to hide – the fact that he is not a US citizen by birth or naturalization therefore is not eligible to hold the office of President.
Even before the Usurper was swept into office with billions of dollars from foreign contributions, Soros cash and union money the so-called “birthers” have been demanding that Obama prove that he was actually born in the US vs. Kenya Africa (which would satisfy the US Constitutional requirements for those who wish to be POTUS). The Senate held hearings on John McCain’s eligibility to become POTUS because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, on a US military Base but no such scrutiny after all of the questions surround Obama.
The MSM and Obama campaign officials have labeled the requesters as “kooks” and “crazies” for persisting in this demand since the Obama camp posted his “short form” certificate on its web site in an attempt to quiet them. So why is the persistent noise still coming about an issue that seemed to be satisfied by the transparent posting of this requested birth certificate by Obama really all about? Here is the answer:
In the year that Obama claims he was born in a Hawaiin hospital, by a physician (which the short form does not show where and by whom) and the State of Hawaii policy for the short form allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii. This is at the heart of the “birthers” demand because the short form provided by the Obama campaign only certifies that the State of Hawaii has a long form on record and does not certify that Obama was actually born in the State of Hawaii.
Factcheck.org came to the rescue of the Obama camp when it declared that they “spent time with the document recently and confirm it is the real McCoy in an attempt to authenticate it.
Problem: Factcheck.org is funded primarily through the “Annenberg Foundation” (A Bill Ayers endeavor and Obama sat on the Board of Directors of Annenberg) thus making their impartiality impossible. In addition to the claim that Factcheck.org “spent time recently with the document and Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night.
According to Wikipedia:
“FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit website that describes itself as a "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.” It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.”
The 9 photos that Factcheck.org maintains they spent time with were time stamped March 12, 2008 and was well before any questions were being raised about his Birth Certificate because at the time he was considered a “long shot” to beat Hillary in the distant Democratic Primaries and at such a late hour (normally when Sandy Burglar was doing his best casework).
So regardless of those protecting Obama from this disclosure the question of where Obama was truly born (Kenya or Hawaii) has not been satisfied by any definitive proof regardless of Factchecks corroboration.Questions surrounding the “copy” and whether it was forged, investigative reporting:
Of course we have to go to an overseas news site to get the information that the American Press won’t give us.Obama’s pledge of transparency doesn’t apply to this issue and certainly doesn’t apply to the Press:
Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs communicated that only one question be allowed regarding the “Birth Certificate request” by the pool of reporters (where the reporter pool has their questions rationed out according to their loyalty).
When the reporter for WND finally got his turn for a question, it was about the “Birth Certificate issue:
Gibbs was contentious with Kinsolving before he ever asked his question. Calling on WND's longtime correspondent, he said: "Lester, I'm a glutton for punishment."
Kinsolving said: "Thank you, thank you, very much. Just one question concerning what the president said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, 'I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said. This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.' End of quote. Do you remember that statement?"
Gibbs: "I can confirm that he said that."
Kinsolving: "Good. In consideration of this very good promise of transparency, why can't the president respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital – (laughter) – 400,000. …"
Gibbs: "Are you looking for the President's birth certificate?"
Kinsolving: "Yes."
Gibbs: "It's on the Internet, Lester."
Kinsolving: "No, no, no -- the long form listing his hospital and physician." (Laughter.)
Gibbs: "Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the President's birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy."
And with that, Gibbs ended the briefing.
Before I get into the numerous lawsuits that have been filed in numerous State courts as well as the ones in Federal courts I want to point out how CBS is complicit in this silencing of the question surrounding Obama’s long form birth certificate. There is a grassroots effort to erect billboards around the country that say the following:
"WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?” -- wnd.com
It does not mentioned Obama’s name (to get around the new campaign laws set to take effect in 2012 that pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning President Campaign names).
CBS owns the majority of billboards around the United States through its media subsidiary and have contacted and denied selling any “adspace” to the group for the following reason:
"misleading, offensive, or otherwise incompatible with individual community standards,"
Supreme Court Sabotage?
“A California attorney whose emergency submission to the U.S. Supreme Court on President Obama's eligibility was turned back without a hearing or comment now is submitting a motion for re-hearing alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.
The motion for reconsideration alleges a court clerk "of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices petitioners' supplemental brief presented on January 15, 2009." Taitz explained in the motion that she submitted a brief Jan. 15 that reflected new developments in the case. She noted such filings "are allowed, when there is a new law or changed circumstance in the case." The change was the approval by Congress of the Electoral College vote in the presidential race. However, the clerk "refused to file this brief in the docket, stating that he will send it back with [an] explanation," the motion states. "Nothing was sent back and no explanation [was] provided.“But now Taitz is raising concerns about manipulation of her case at the Supreme Court.
She asserts docketing information about her case "was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after the inauguration and two days before [the case was to be heard]." – wnd
Department of Justice Sabotage?
Below is a follow up to the original request to the US States Attorney inquiring the status of the Quo Waranto which, by law, he had 45 days to respond. On May 28, 2009 without answer Jeffrey A. Taylor resigned (or was he forced out).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------United States Attorney, Jeffrey A. Taylor
Judiciary Center Building
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Ph (202)514-7566;
Fax (202)307-3569
May 5, 2009
Honorable United States Attorney Taylor
Re: Request for the United States to timely relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II to Test His Title to President
On March 29, 2009, the Relators below brought information in the nature of Quo Warranto that Barack Hussein Obama II is usurping the office of President. The information in the public record indicates that by Amendment XX, President Elect Barack Obama had failed to qualify under Article II, as not being a “natural born citizen” etc.
Like the Realtors, are you not bound by your Oath of Office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . .”?
5 USC 3331. Our Founders demonstrated the supreme standard of “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions.” Declaration of Independence – 1776.
Relators requested that, by your codified responsibilities as US Attorney, you institute a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama under DC Code § 16-3502, and demand that Obama show clear title, proving, with clear and convincing evidence, that he had qualified as President elect, for the federal office of President.
The petition for redress of grievances securing the Constitution as preserved in Amendment 1 of the US Constitution, as codified in the security of Magna Carta section 61. By organic law of the District of Columbia, the common law including sections of the Magna Carta remain in force.
DC ST § 45-401. This security guaranteed prompt redress of grievances within forty days. Relators humbly request that you act on the information they related in the nature of Quo Warranto within this 40 days established in Common Law.
By their oath of office and and interest above other citizens and taxpayers, Relators submitted that they have standing.
The District of Columbia Code provides clear jurisdiction for Quo Warranto. Relators related this information in the form of draft motions to the United States District Court, in the District of Columbia. This quo warranto focuses on the foundational issue of enforcing and preserving our Constitution’s vital safeguards provided to preserve our Republic from tyranny.
We pray that you promptly provide redress and file this Quo Warranto.
Yours sincerelyOrly Taitz, Esq.,
Attorney for Relators
26302 La PazMission
Viejo CA 92691
Phone 949-683-5411
Petitioners/Relators:
ALLEN C. JAMES, US Army, Active Duty, currently in Iraq
RAYMOND REFITT, Commander, Nuclear Submarine, US Navy,
RetHARRY RILEY, Colonel, US Army,
RetCHARLES E. MILLER, Lt. Col. US Air Force,
RetTIMOTHY W. KENNEY, Citadel Instructor, USMC veteran, Virginia Army National Guard
RALPH H. JENKINS, Cpt US Marine Corps
ERIC SWAFFORD, State Representative of Tennessee
LARRY RAPPAPORT , State Representative of New Hampshire
CYNTHIA DAVIS, State Representative of Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In addition to the “quo warranto” request to US Attorney taylor another was sent to the US Attorney General (Eric Holder).
If Holder refuses to act on the request (ostensibly because of a “conflict of interest” because he is an Obama appointee, then the matter falls back to the US Attorney Taylor.
But, wait – he can’t rule on the request because he has resigned which places the request in limbo and needs to be filed anew with the new US Attorney who will ultimately replace him.
See the circle of avoidance here?
Whitehouse Dialogue scrubbed “birther requests” from website
Per WND – “With more than 200 individual threads and thousands of comments on the eligibility issue alone, moderators of the White House website on "open government dialogue" have been working tirelessly to edit the dialogue about Barack Obama's elusive "long-form" birth certificate.
Many of the top-rated threads are from citizens calling on Obama to release his birth certificate. The postings in the "top rated" category have received the most "looks promising" votes from users. New threads on the topic of Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president are appearing by the minute. WND observed the "Making Data More Accessible" section for several hours as more suggestions appeared and at least 60 were subsequently deleted on the first page alone – all requests for the president to submit proof of citizenship.”
Surprise, surprise the “birth certificate” question did not make it to the next round of discussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment