The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a “natural-born” U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.
Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes’ suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama’s original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault.
Other suits have been filed by Andy Martin, whose case was dismissed in Hawaii, and by an Ohio man whose case also was dismissed. Five more suits, all later dismissed, were filed in Hawaii by a person who is currently suing the “Peoples Association of Human, Animals Conceived God/s and Religions, John McCain [and] USA Govt.” The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and “All News Media.”
The most famous case questioning Obama’s citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for “lack of standing”—ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.
.
The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.
Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard—and not all of those ultimately were successful.
jjanega@tribune.com
Federal Suit Seeks Obama Birth Certificate
Source: Honolulu Advertiser
Another legal effort to force state officials to produce a copy of President-elect Barack Obama’s birth certificate has been filed, this time in federal court.
Similar legal actions have been filed here and in several other states, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, Georgia and Mississippi.
Circuit Judge Bert Ayabe last month dismissed the suit filed in state court here, upholding arguments from Gov. Linda Lingle’s administration that birth records are confidential under state law.
The new challenge is an outgrowth of a legal suit filed in Mississippi, which questioned whether Obama is a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.
Plaintiffs in that suit subpoenaed a copy of the birth certificate Nov. 26 from the Hawai’i Health Department. The plaintiffs include conservative political activist and failed presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois.
Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine wrote Dec. 1 to the local attorney handling the case, James Hochberg, stating that Hawai’i law prohibits disclosure of the record.
“Vital statistics records, such as birth certificates, are protected by strict confidentiality requirements under Hawai’i state law,” Nagamine wrote.
“The record could be disclosed to a person whose right to inspect or obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction,” the letter continued.
“This requires more than a subpoena prepared and issued by counsel of record,” Nagamine wrote.
The state’s health director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, issued a statement in late October saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics had inspected Obama’s Hawai’i birth certificate and found it to be valid.
During the presidential campaign, the Obama camp posted a copy of his Honolulu birth certificate on its Web site. That copy indicates he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.
Our System Is Broken
Joseph Farah of World Net Daily
Question: How is it possible we have a new president about to be sworn into office Jan. 20 who has never been properly vetted for eligibility?
Answer: The system is broken.
We have a Constitution that is clear on the simple, straightforward eligibility requirements – 35 years of age, natural born citizen.
The problem is no one is enforcing it. No one in government – state or federal – even seems to care.
Recently, a reader shared a letter he received from Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., about the controversy over Barack Obama’s eligibility questions. Martinez questioned none of the assertions of the letter writer vis-à-vis the unanswered questions about the missing birth certificate, issues with his parentage and his years living in Indonesia.
Instead, Martinez said the election trumped the Constitution!
He wrote that these questions were all raised during the campaign, but people voted for him anyway. Therefore, according to Martinez, the matter is settled. Obama will be the next president – the Constitution be damned.
Of course, that’s not the way it is supposed to work.
Matters of eligibility for office should have been addressed by controlling legal authorities along the way – secretaries of state, the Federal Elections Commission, judges who ruled on lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility.
Instead, citizen concerns and demands were ignored.
Question: How is it that we have courts and government agencies that are always seemingly willing to exceed their authority in other matters, but, on one so important as this, they are not even willing to carry out their sworn duties?
Answer: The system is broken.
I have an idea.
Let’s fix it.
Let’s take this matter head on right now. Let’s not wait until the next election. Let’s expose the corruption in the last. Let’s rise up in righteous indignation that our Constitution is being purposely and willfully ignored by officials who swear an oath to uphold it.
We do not live in a nation where anything goes. We do not live in a nation where voters can overturn the Constitution. We do not live in a nation ruled by men. We live in a nation ruled by the law.
Let’s keep it that way.
If the issues surrounding Obama’s status as a natural born citizen are simply swept under the rug, then the Constitution simply no longer means what it says. It no longer limits officials from doing anything they feel like doing.
I know some of you are thinking: “Farah, were you born yesterday? Don’t you know officials have been ignoring the Constitution for years?”
Yes, I know all that. I’ve been writing about it for many, many years.
But this case is more blatant. It is so simple. It is so easy to understand. Notice Mel Martinez didn’t assert that he is certain Obama is a natural born citizen. He is tacitly acknowledging – along with many of his colleagues – that there is at least serious doubt about the constitutional eligibility of the man likely to be voted in as the next president by the Electoral College Dec. 15.
If this happens, the question of eligibility for the highest office in the land will no longer even be a matter for concern. Precedent will have been established. Arnold Schwarzenegger will suddenly be eligible to run for the office in 2012. No new law will have to be passed. The Constitution will not need to be amended. The age requirement will also have to be set aside.
I’m not willing to accept this.
I’m not willing to see the final stake be driven through the heart and soul of our Constitution – the greatest document for governance since the Bible.
I urge you to stand up and fight.
If you have not yet signed my petition to all controlling legal authorities on this matter, I urge you to do so now.
My Note: It would seem like Obama has been planning this since 2006! -Read Below- Jschulmansr
All In The Family
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
An associate lawyer in a Chicago -based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen, calling the requirement “stupid” and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.
The issue is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There have been accusations that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has stated. His paternal grandmother has stated she was in attendance at his birth in Mombasa. While Hawaii officials say they have seen his birth certificate, they have declined to release information from it.
Join more than 150,000 others in signing WND’s online petition calling for release of Barack Obama’s birth certificate and verifying beyond any shadow of a doubt his constitutional eligibility for office. This offer ends Thursday at noon Eastern Time to ensure all letters are delivered by Friday morning to the Supreme Court.
The Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet isn’t considered by critics to resolve the issue, since during the 1960s when Obama was born, the new state issued the document to infants not necessarily born in Hawaii.
There also remain unanswered questions about his youth, when he lived and attended school in Indonesia and later when he traveled to Pakistan. The questions include whether he gave up a U.S. citizenship to attend school or traveled on another nation’s passport to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports were unwelcome there.
Answers to those issues could determine whether Obama meets the Constitution’s demand for a “natural-born” citizen.
Last But Not Least and this one is Scary! – Jschulmansr
Obama Economic Advisor Was Socialist Party Member?
North American Union supporter under consideration for top Labor post
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The man recently appointed to President-elect Barack Obama’s economic transition team was a bona fide member of a major U.S. socialist organization, according to literature from the group.
Former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., reportedly being considered for the Labor secretary position in the incoming Obama administration, has had a longstanding close relationship with the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, an organization dedicated to transforming America into a socialist society.
Now WND has learned the DSA’s official newsletter in 2007 identified Bonior as a DSA member at the organization’s Boston branch. Neither the DSA in Boston nor Bonior returned repeated WND calls seeking comment. Obama’s transition team did not return a phone call or e-mail inquiry.
Earlier this month, the Detroit chapter of the DSA honored Bonior and his wife, Judy, at its annual dinner. Bonior has been honored at several DSA functions the past six years, including in 2003, when he was the keynote speaker at the U.S. socialist organization’s national convention in Detroit.
Bonior was a longtime critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, a trilateral trade bloc created by the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments. But he argued that as long as NAFTA was in effect, a joint parliament should be formed to oversee the agreement.
“How do we democratize this globalization argument (NAFTA)?” Bonior stated at the DSA convention. “One of the ideas we came up with was forming a North American Parliamentary Union. A North America Parliament, with Mexico, Canada and the United States, with people – probably first appointed, but eventually elected like they are in the European Parliament
Bonior added: “I think the chances of this happening in the short run are not very good, but in the long run … we have a chance of forming a North American parliament, and with that, I think, the dialogue on these issues that we all struggle with and are frustrated with will have a place in which they can surface, and hopefully we can move forward.”
“The proposed North American Parliamentary Union would be a democratic structure to enfranchise all citizens – farmers, laborers, small business, environmentalists, consumer advocates and others – in the NAFTA countries, as well as, hopefully, Central America,” he said.
Bonior has other ties to the DSA. The socialist group reportedly campaigned for him in 2002 after he left Congress and ran unsuccessfully for governor of Michigan.
“The local endorsed Rep. Bonior almost 18 months ago. DSA helped with the early fundraising for his campaign, collecting signatures for his nominating petitions, distributing literature at Detroit churches, and walking door to door in Macomb County on his behalf on the weekend before the primary,” stated the DSA newsletter.
In 2006, the socialist group formed a political action committee to which only DSA members in good standing are allowed to contribute, according to FEC guidelines. The DSA states the committee, which seeks to support federal political candidates supported by the socialist group, is careful about who contributes to the fund.
“Because the law is so specific, all contributions are carefully screened to make sure that they are from (DSA) members,” states a 2006 DSA newsletter.
New Zeal found that on June 19, 2006, Bonior contributed $1,000 to the DSA’s committee.
Obama appointee ‘Saddam Hussein Baghdad boy’
First elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1976, Bonior served from 1991 to 2002 as Democratic whip, the second-ranking party position in the House. He was known as a supporter of labor unions, later chairing the board of the pro-union American Rights at Work, whose board members include the American Union Movement AFL-CIO’s president, John Sweeney, a DSA member.
Bonior was a champion of the Employee Free Choice Act. The measure seeks to make the creation of unions more lenient than current requirements, such as lowering the percentage of employees that must join. It would require an employer to begin bargaining with a new union 10 days after the union is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative. If the union and employer cannot agree upon the terms of a bargaining contract within 90 days, either party can request federal mediation, which could lead to binding arbitration.
The former congressman previously was the center of controversy when in September 2002 he visited Iraq – at the behest of Saddam Hussein, according to some reports. Bonior traveled to Iraq along with fellow congressmen Jim McDermott and Mike Thompson.
Prior to the trip, the three politicians issued a joint press release, posted on their respective congressional websites, explaining their visit was aimed at “gaining insight into the humanitarian challenges another war on Iraq would have on innocent Iraqis and the dangerous implications of a unilateral, preemptive strike on U.S. national security.”
After the trio’s trip generated criticism, with one magazine, the Weekly Standard, coining them the “Baghdad Democrats” and “Baghdad boys,” Bonior claimed to the U.S. media the visit was about ensuring freedom of access to Hussein’s suspected weapons facilities.
“We wanted to impress upon the Iraqi government and the people of Iraq how important it was for them to allow unconditional, unfettered, unrestricted access to the inspectors,” Bonior said.
But Bonior and the other congressmen didn’t seem bothered when, during their trip, the Iraqi state-run media painted their visit as a show of support for Hussein’s regime.
The Iraq Daily, published by Hussein’s Ministry of Information, reportedly printed daily updates of the trip, including in English. One Sept. 30 report stated, “the members of the U.S. Congress delegation have underlined that this visit aims to get acquainted with the truth of Iraq’s people sufferings due to ongoing embargo which caused shortage in food and medicine for all Iraqi people.”
The report was carried alongside another article boasting of Hussein’s support for Palestinian terror organizations.
The Weekly Standard highlighted how, upon touching down in Iraq on Sept. 27, Iraqi Satellite Channel Television reported the congressional visitors would be brought to Iraqi hospitals “to see the suffering caused by the unjust embargo and the shortage of medicines and medical supplies. Congressman Jim McDermott told reporters upon arrival at Saddam International Airport that the delegation members reject the policy of aggression dominating the U.S. administration.”
In 2002, WND reported former FBI officials charged that Bonior, while in Congress, had hampered efforts to investigate terrorist suspects in Detroit.
Next: New “Grassroots” Resistance of American Citizens Opposed to Obama’s Socialist Agenda!
Source: Grassfire.Org Sign the Petition Now!
Obama’s Nation Has Just Begun
Join The Resistance
Welcome to Obama’s nation…
The “transformational” figure who will “change the world” is now in charge, and he’s on a mission. Emboldened by an overwhelming electoral victory and a near-supermajority in Congress, President-elect Obama and his allies are preparing to implement his liberal, “post-American” agenda. Simply put, what President-elect Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Congress have in store has the potential to rapidly move America to the socialist Left.
1 million citizens resisting…
Who can stop the Obama agenda? Only an unprecedented idea-based Resistance from freedom-loving citizens can prevent the full implementation of Obama’s march to the Left. That’s why Grassfire.org is seeking to identify and mobilize grassroots citizens who will Join The Resistance— an alliance of patriotic, resilient and determined conservatives who will not forsake their principles. Our goal?
One million citizens joining together by Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.
The Resistance States:
As an American citizen, while I will show respect to President-elect Obama, I oppose the far-Left and socialistic elements that comprise the centerpiece of his agenda. I recognize that it will take a patriotic and resilient Citizen Resistance to block implementation of this agenda and I join with others who oppose these threats to our liberties.
Specifically, I Resist:
|
|
Socialistic wealth redistribution including any and all tax increases and big-government welfare programs.
|
|
Silencing conservatives through the Fairness Doctrine and other efforts that restrict free speech.
|
|
|
Open border anarchy including amnesty for illegal aliens and promotion of multi-nation “unions”.
|
|
Government-run health care that weakens our system and imposes more tax burdens on citizens.
|
|
|
Weakening of our military through rapid pullback from Iraq, defunding our troops and overall disarmament.
|
|
Social liberalism including radical pro-abortion agenda, the end of marriage and the homosexual agenda.
|
|
|
Liberal court activism that undermines faith, family and liberties while expanding government control.
|
|
Post-American globalism that diminishes our global role and threatens our national sovereignty.
|
|
|
Environmental extremism, the CO2 tax,
undermining coal and nuclear, and bans on
exploration.
Sign The Petition – Join The Resistance!
|
|
Weakening the 2nd Amendment through unconstitutional gun laws that take away or penalize us for owning firearms and our right to defend our family, our property, and ourselves.
Sign The Petition – Join The Resistance!
|
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