Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

[Aplomb]

http://decalogosintl.org/?p=75
Here's a press release on yet another case that is going forward:
Date Set For Oral Argument

December 10, 2008

Contact: Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S.
Tel: (425) 605-4774 Fax: (425) 818-5371
Email: attorney@stephenpidgeon.com


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


12 Washington voters sue to set aside the election of Barack Obama in Washington.


Bellevue, WA, December 10, 2008 — The Washington Supreme Court has set a date for oral argument on the case Broe v. Reed, to be heard en banc on January 8, 2008.


On December 4, 2008, James (Jim) Broe and 11 other Washington voters sued Secretary of State Sam Reed in the Washington Supreme Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to require the Secretary to set aside the votes cast for Senator Barack Obama, because at the time of the election, Senator Obama had failed to establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States, failed to establish that he was an American citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of Barry Soetoro.


“The issue of standing seems to be behind us,” said Stephen Pidgeon, counsel for the plaintiffs. “What remains is to establish the duty of the Secretary of State, under Article III, Sections 4 and 17 of the Washington constitution, under RCW 29A.04.230 which names the Secretary as the state’s chief of elections, and under relevant administrative codes which also require the Secretary to act.”


Pidgeon goes on to say that “each candidate that stands in a primary election must make a declaration of candidacy, stating that ‘at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.’ The Secretary of State has a constitutionally imposed duty to determine if the candidate is telling the truth.”


Written by admin · Filed Under Press Alerts

[Aplomb]

http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2...2409477594.txt

Obama Birth Certificates Cases Mostly Dismissed Due To Lack Of Standing On Part Of Plaintiffs



Published: Thursday, December 11, 2008

John P. Connolly, The Bulletin

Many cases in the Barack Obama citizenship controversy have been dismissed because of a lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs.

Standing, known also as locus standi, is defined as the ability of a party to demonstrate that they have a right to file a lawsuit or file a petition under the circumstances. It depends on the underlying cause of action, the injury to the plaintiff, and the ability for restitution. The plaintiffs are limited to what they can or can’t bring to court by these rules.

A benchmark for standing in federal law is found in the 1975 case, Warth v. Seldon. In that case, the plaintiffs sued a town in New York, claiming that their zoning laws discriminated against the poor. The case ended with the Supreme Court formulating a definition of what standing is.


“In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues,” the court ruled.

Usually, a plaintiff must prove that he is or would be particularly harmed by the actions of the defendant. He must have suffered, or will soon suffer, some actual injury from the defendant. The harm may not be abstract or theoretical. Further, the link between the actions of the defendant and the harm caused to the plaintiff must be demonstrated. Finally, a person lacks standing if a favorable court decision would not guarantee relief for his harm.

Standing limitations have derailed many suits challenging Mr. Obama’s citizenship status. Plaintiffs may not represent the harms that may be done to other parties, but may only request relief for his own complaints, and the plaintiff may not sue for general grievances.

A significant way the principles of standing are practiced is found in the lack of standing for taxpayers in the court system. Taxpayers cannot file suits against the federal government for misuse of tax dollars, because there is no particular grievance any one person can claim from that spending. The taxpayer is too far removed from the tax spending for the use to harm the payer. Citizens may sometimes challenge specific actions of their government, but cannot dictate through suit what public expenditures shall be.

In essence, a single person may not go into the court and request relief from harm that affects the majority of people. This argument is why the case of Philip Berg, the Pennsylvania lawyer and former deputy attorney general who filed suit in federal court over Mr. Obama’s citizenship, was dismissed for lack of standing. Mr. Berg has argued that Mr. Obama’s lack of submitted evidence proving naturally born citizenship has prevented voters from having a legitimate Democratic candidate for which to vote.

Other cases have argued that state officials have failed to perform their duties in vetting a candidate and seek redress on those grounds.

Those suits do not deal with disenfranchisement in the general election, but have hoped for a favorable outcome based on impropriety in the candidate being put on the ballot.

John P. Connolly can be reached at jconnolly@thebulletin.us

[vector7]

Obama's own Cabinet member: He's 'an immigrant'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83114

Obama's own Cabinet member: He's 'an immigrant'
Posted: December 09, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

Don't believe Barack Obama's grandmother? Don't believe the ambassador to Kenya? How about Barack Obama's own Cabinet member?

That's right – former presidential candidate and Obama's choice for secretary of commerce, Gov. Bill Richardson, slipped up. In an effort to reach out to the Hispanic community, he admitted what Barack Obama has been trying to hide all these months: "Barack Obama is an immigrant." See it for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUd...layer_embedded

ou don't need a translator to understand what Richardson admitted: Barack Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. That means we have a guy who's planning to take over the White House who is in direct violation of the Constitution. And his own Cabinet member says so. That's pretty big news, one would think. But the media has refused to cover it with anything more than a blurb laced with a "this is ridiculous" tone. It is ridiculous – ridiculous that the Constitution means so little that we can't even ensure that it's being followed. It's ridiculous that the story of the century is being ignored by those whose job it is to report it.

[Aplomb]

http://www.newsok.com/law-sought-to-...rticle/3329625

Law sought to prove candidate citizenship in Oklahoma
Lawmaker wary of Obama record


BY MICHAEL MCNUTT
Published: December 12, 2008

A state lawmaker, motivated by swirling questions on whether President-elect Barack Obama meets the U.S. Constitution’s citizenship requirement, said Thursday he will file a bill requiring anyone who files for office in Oklahoma to show proof of citizenship.

"This could have taken care of the whole thing if we had a state law that any candidate has to show it up front,” said Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow.


Under a proposed bill by Ritze, all candidates, from those running for district attorney to president, would be required to provide a copy of a certified birth certificate and a driver’s license or some other form of government-issued identification at the time they file with the state Election Board.


No identification is required to file for an office with the state Election Board, although candidates sign an affidavit stating that they are registered voters.


Ritze, a physician, said he has a master’s degree in forensics and has had extensive training in analyzing documents and has read about the documents the Democratic president-elect has submitted.


Ritze said he does not believe Obama submitted an authentic copy of his birth certificate.


Oklahoma Democratic Party Chairman Ivan Holmes said he hadn’t seen the proposed legislation, but it appears to "be another typical Republican ploy of sour grapes.”


The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Obama’s electoral eligibility Monday.



More challenges are pending.


The Obama campaign last summer produced copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in a Honolulu hospital Aug. 4, 1961. It had a Web site, fightthesmears.com, to refute what it calls misinformation about Obama.


"Both our national and state constitutions are clear in what they require for a person to be qualified to hold elected office,” Ritze said.


"If a person can’t prove their citizenship, they have no business attempting to represent the people of this state.”

[Aplomb]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=83458

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Thousands advise electors to check eligibility
But 1 who teaches 'Marxist theory' ridicules concerns

Posted: December 13, 2008
12:20 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


If documents some day prove Barack Obama is not eligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution, none of the 538 Electoral College members who vote him into office

Monday will be able to claim ignorance.


That's after 3,653 citizens had enough concern over the allegations, they participated in a WND effort to deliver letters to every elector, urging them to investigate.


The campaign followed an earlier campaign among WND readers that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when a case contesting Obama's eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.


The latest letters were sent FedEx to all 538 members of the Electoral College.


As WND has reported, serious questions remain over whether Obama is "a natural born citizen," as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. While he claims to have been born in [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Hawaii[/COLOR][/COLOR] in 1961, two Obama family members have told WND they were present at his birth in Mombasa, Kenya.


Further, Obama has steadfastly refused to release publicly his full birth certificate that would identify the hospital of his birth, the attending physician and other details.



Instead, the campaign posted a document purporting to be a birth certificate devoid of these details.


Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, explained the significance of the letters to electors.


"If there is any doubt, electors have a sworn duty to find out. And, no matter what you hear from my colleagues in the press, elected officials who chose not to investigate this matter and not to insist that safeguards and checks were in place on a matter so urgent and fundamental, there is doubt – grave doubt.


"In fact, unless we're going to live under an honor system in the future, one that relies solely on what a candidate says about his own eligibility, there is no reason to believe Obama is. There is simply no valid evidence to prove it, and there is plenty to raise doubts," he wrote in a commentary on the program.


That "honor system" apparently is exactly what some electors want. One Colorado elector who told the [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Aspen[/COLOR][/COLOR] Times she spends some of her time "teaching Marxist theory at a university," Camilla Auger, said she was upset that anyone would raise concerns about Obama.


Auger will voted for Obama Monday along with Colorado electors Margaret Atencio of Denver, Polly Baca of Denver, Ann Knollman of Arvada, Terry Phillips of Louisville, Pam Shaddock of Greeley, Don Strickland of Centennial, Jennifer Trujillo-Sanchez of Colorado Springs and [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Wellington[/COLOR][/COLOR] Webb of Denver.


She ridiculed those with concerns about Obama's eligibility.


"I took them seriously enough that I was concerned that there are that many nutty people in the country making depressing, absurd allegations," she told the Denver Post.



"There are so many problems in the country right now, we need to work together."


The Post itself, in fact, claimed the "allegations have been repeatedly debunked by the Obama campaign and news outlets."


The Times report said Auger has been a social sciences professor and vice president of an oil company, Tosco Corp.


"I think I was probably the only person in country to be executive vice president of an oil company and teaching Marxist theory at a university," she told the Times.



Others, however, have another view, and columnist Randall Hoven of AmericanThinker.com is one.


"Unfortunately, the facts are not clear. Multiple witnesses say Obama was born outside the U.S., that his father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was a minor. If those are the facts, he was not 'natural born' per the laws in place at the time. Other cases have advanced different arguments challenging Obama's eligibility under the natural born citizen clause," he wrote.


Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign up now!
More than a dozen cases have been brought into courtrooms around the country over Obama's eligibility, many of which have been dismissed summarily. However, three already have reached the U.S. Supreme Court and others still remain in the pipeline that could lead there.


The Supreme Court has declined to act in one case, which alleged Obama held dual citizenship because of a father who was a British subject, and is being asked to rule on a motion in a second case. A third case, scheduled for conference among the justices, also raises questions about Obama's lineage, [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]citizenship[/COLOR][/COLOR] and eligibility, because of his British-subject father and a mother who was a minor.


Last month WND reported how the situation could create a "constitutional crisis." The concerns were raised in a lawsuit in California, with lead plaintiff former presidential candidate Alan Keyes asking state officials to prevent Electoral College members from voting for Obama until they investigated his eligibility in the case being handled by the United States Justice Foundation.


WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.


The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn't simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.


The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?


Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Kenya[/COLOR][/COLOR] during a time when his father was a British subject.


The California case for which Keyes is a plaintiff states: "Should [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Senator [COLOR=blue ! important]Obama[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the office of president of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the president of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."


Hoven writes, "As much as we wish the bad thing to go away, the 'evidence' brought forth to prove Obama's natural born status is next to non-existent, despite what you might have read or heard."


Several of the online "fact" websites have stated Obama's documentation proves his citizenship and eligibility, some even citing sources within the Obama campaign staff.


"Yes, there was a birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper at the time. Yes, the state of Hawaii said his birth certificate has been verified. Yes, we've seen Obama's birth certificate and it says he was born in Honolulu," Hoven writes.


But, he said, "Each of these claims falls apart upon the slightest examination."


A birth announcement published in a newspaper, for example, "means nothing."


"The announcement is not exactly informative. It says 'Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy, son. Aug 4.' That's it. It ran on page B-6 of the August 13, 1961 edition of 'The Sunday Advertiser.' It is not an official document of any kind and makes no claim of the location of his birth in any case. It announces a birth, period," Hoven writes.


Then there's the issue of the affirmation by the state of Hawaii regarding Obama's birth certificate.


"The actual quote from the Department of Health director is: 'I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,'" Hoven said.


"All they did was verify that Obama's original birth certificate is on record. But that doesn't tell us what we need to know. What we need to know is where he was born," he said.


"The state of Hawaii did not say what was on the certificate and it won't release a copy out of privacy considerations. The state of Hawaii simply verified that Obama has a birth certificate on record; it did not verify that he was born in Hawaii," Hoven said.


Another point is Hawaii's provision, he said, that provides "certificates" for children born outside Hawaii.


The online image of a "certification of live birth" posted by Obama's FightTheSmears.com website, also, falls into that category, leaving many questions.


"Most importantly … this is not Obama's original birth certificate (the 'long form') and thus does not tell us what we need to know. Even if totally genuine, it is not the document necessary to prove he was born in Hawaii," Hoven wrote.


He continued, "In this case, the Constitution is very clear. Article II, Section 1 states, 'no person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of president.' No fuzz there. No need to look into penumbras and emanations. If a guy ain't natural born, he can't be president."


GOP presidential candidate John McCain during the campaign responded when his eligibility was questioned, due to the fact he was born to two U.S. citizens outside the boundaries of the 50 states.


A petition drive also has collected more than 175,000 signatures – so far – from people who want to know the truth.


Auger told the Times she recognizes the importance of the Electoral College.


"You would say that it's a ceremonial role except for the fact that, as we know, we have presidents who have been elected by the Electoral College and not by the popular vote," Auger told the newspaper.


The report said she was careful to note that should something, "like a scandal," happen to Obama before the Electoral College vote, they technically could elect someone else.


Farah also launched a petition drive on WND three weeks ago that calls on all controlling legal authorities to ensure the Constitution is followed on the question of eligibility and for full public disclosure of the facts of Obama's birthplace and parentage. More than 175,000 people have signed on to the petition in that time.


Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Stanley[/COLOR][/COLOR] Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other specifics provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama.


WND dispatched private detectives to every hospital in Hawaii to see if there were any records of the birth of the first black man elected president. But, as yet, no hospital is claiming that distinction.


The letter told electors: "As is evident not only from lawsuits, but from news stories and the actions of millions of Americans signing petitions, this constitutional issue has not yet been addressed, even at this late hour.


"Unfortunately, there isn't enough time for our slow-moving legal process to deal with this before the Electoral College meets next week. Only you, our Electors, have the power and responsibility – and the obligation under the Constitution – to use your authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.


"There is grave and widespread concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. There should be no doubt whatsoever that America's next president was truly born in the United States.


"Remember, if the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law. And a nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men."

[Aplomb]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/..._syndrome.html

December 09, 2008 Obama and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

By Randall Hoven

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the Donofrio case concerning whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore qualified to be President. Also, David Horowitz diagnosed those who claim Obama is not natural born as being afflicted with "Obama Derangement Syndrome." Horowitz told people to "shut up about the birth certificate."

A bad day for those of us in tin-foil hats. Even Michelle Malkin is against us .

Mr. Horowitz whizzes right by the issue of whether or not Obama is Constitutionally qualified. He simply says it doesn't matter. He asked,

"What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil?"

When the US Constitution is clear on a matter, we are not supposed to re-think "what difference does it make to the future of this country." If we do this re-thinking at every step, we would not need a Constitution; we would merely cogitate on how proposal X will affect our future. In short, no need for a Constitution.

In this case, the Constitution is very clear. Article II, Section 1 states, "no person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." No fuzz there. No need to look into penumbras and emanations. If a guy ain't natural born, he can't be President.

But, the election already happened. Too late, right? That's Horowitz's contention.

"How viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?"

Again, the Constitution is clear on this in the 20^th Amendment.

"If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified ..." [My emphasis.]

The US Constitution tells us exactly what to do in the current situation. The election is not some kind of deadline. Even the true election by Electors is not the deadline. The deadline is "the time fixed for the beginning of his term." That would be January 20, 2009. We have not yet reached the Constitutional deadline. The Constitution even hints that there is, or should be, some kind of qualification process: "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify." (By the way, that part of the Constitution was not written by dead white guys some 200 years ago; the 20^th Amendment was ratified in 1933.)

If we find that Obama is not natural born, then the Constitution says Joe Biden shall be President until the President thing gets sorted out. Everything about that is horrible. Unfortunately, it is exactly what the Constitution says we shall do. It does not "suggest"; it says "shall."

Are we to apply the Constitution only in cases where it is convenient to do so?

Those of us concerned about this, at least some of us, are not driven by keeping Obama out of office. Look, we're talking President Biden. We're talking disqualifying the first African-American to be elected President. We are talking Constitutional, existential crisis. Riots in the street, even civil war, maybe. This is a very bad situation.

But for all I know, there is a simple way to get past this. Perhaps some kind of retroactive re-definition of "natural born" that would handle Obama's particular technicality. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm actually hoping someone knows a clean way out of this.

For all I know, the facts of this case could turn out to be wonderful: Barack Obama is indeed natural born and we all live happily ever after. But the facts are key here. If he is not natural born, we should not ignore that fact.

Unfortunately, the facts are not clear. Multiple witnesses say Obama was born outside the US, that his father was not a US citizen and his mother was a minor. If those are the facts, he was not "natural born" per the laws in place at the time. Other cases have advanced different arguments challenging Obama's eligibility under the natural born citizen clause.

As much as we wish the bad thing to go away, the "evidence" brought forth to prove Obama's natural born status is next to non-existent, despite what you might have read or heard. Yes, there was a birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper at the time. Yes, the state of Hawaii said his birth certificate has been verified. Yes, we've seen Obama's birth certificate and it says he was born in Honolulu.

Each of these claims falls apart upon the slightest examination. For those of you tired of the subject, skip to my Conclusion. For anyone curious about the evidence presented to prove Obama's natural born status, read on.

The Birth Announcement. A birth announcement in a newspaper means nothing. Although Michelle Malkin waxed a little snarky on this, "Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?", it is fairly common to run such announcements for babies born outside the area of the announcement or even the US. Proud grandparents, for example, could have run the announcement just to let people know they are now grandparents.

The announcement is not exactly informative . It says "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy, son. Aug 4." That's it. It ran on page B-6 of the August 13, 1961 edition of The Sunday Advertiser. It is not an official document of any kind and makes no claim of the location of his birth in any case. It announces a birth, period.

The "Verification." Here is how the story was reported by KITV .

"The state's Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate."

That looks pretty black and white -- at first glance. And that is how it normally gets reported. But read it again and then the whole article. The above statement simply says the birth certificate is legitimate. The actual quote from the Department of Health director is

"I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have 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."

All they did was verify that Obama's original birth certificate is on record. But that doesn't tell us what we need to know. What we need to know is where he was born.

Surprisingly, Hawaii happens to issue birth certificates for babies born outside Hawaii. The Hawaiian law on that states:

"Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."

The state of Hawaii did not say what was on the certificate and it won't release a copy out of privacy considerations. The state of Hawaii simply verified that Obama has a birth certificate on record; it did not verify that he was born in Hawaii.

The released birth certificate. It is often claimed that Obama has already released his birth certificate. What we have is an online copy via the web site FightTheSmears.com. There are several significant questions about this certificate.

• Did this really come from Obama? Is FightTheSmears an official conduit of information from Obama?
• How genuine is the document? Is it a photo-shopped or Microsoft Word fake, ala Dan Rather's memo? (I am not a forensic documentarian, so I will remain silent here. Snopes says it isn't a forgery.)
• The document itself says, "Any alterations invalidate this certificate" and it has been altered by, at least, a redacted certificate number.
• Most importantly, rendering the previous points moot, this is not Obama's original birth certificate (the "long form") and thus does not tell us what we need to know. Even if totally genuine, it is not the document necessary to prove he was born in Hawaii.

As Joe the Farmer reported in the American Thinker ,

"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.'"

The essence of the complaint is that the "Certification of Live Birth" that is used by FightTheSmears, the Annenberg Political FactCheck and others does not have the same information as an original birth certificate, including location of birth.

Conclusion. The irony is that this would not take a protracted trial with tons of evidence and counter-evidence, examination and cross-examination, expert testimony from forensic anthropologists, or satellite imagery. All it should take is for Obama to authorize the release his original birth certificate, the "long form", the one the state of Hawaii says it has on record.

That's it; release the real certificate. If the "long form" birth certificate says Obama was born in the US, I think we are done.

Hurray!

But even if it doesn't, we are not in Constitutional crisis or civil war just yet. Real lawyers could review the law and determine that Obama's birth circumstances still meet the "natural born" criteria. Let's get this issue out of the newspapers and the blogs and into a courtroom. A courtroom, you know, where facts and the law are dealt with in this country.

But if that doesn't end it, we are still not in a crisis. Legislators could come up with some kind of retro-active legislation. I hear it's been done before. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem hopeless.

Only if all of the above fail prior to January 20, 2009, would we be required to follow the Constitutional remedy of installing President Biden.

I think this series of actions is what lawyers call due process and due diligence. That, in my mind, is what we should be doing rather ignoring the entire matter because it is so unpleasant. We should also not be rope-a-doping the legal situation just to push the issue past January 20, 2009. Simply address the issue in a straightforward legal and Constitutional manner. That's all I ask.

But please, do not tell us to deny the facts, ignore the Constitution and "shut up." George Orwell reminded us that

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows."

Two plus two makes four. And the US President must be natural born.

Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his web site, kulak.worldbreak.com.

[Aplomb]

December 10th comment added by Randall Hoven:

Just one last word. To all of you who think you have that "one piece" of information that trumps everything the rest of us are stuggling through, QED, please check your hubris at the door. This case is complicated and ambiguous. It requires some knowledge of law.

There was enough in just two of the cases so far that first Thomas, and then Scalia, thought the case should at least be reviewed by all members of the Court. And neither of these cases even involved whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii.

This is no time for know-it-alls. As much as we appreciate your input.

[Aplomb]

However, just a few days later, the author's tune changes, lol: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...rn_pickle.html

[samizdat]

If bama is elected Mon., and later admits or is cornered, adjudicated etc. into being "ineligible"- shoeless Joe will not automatically step in- why? Because (poll)

1. He's a slut.
2. Hilary wants it "in to win" badder.
3. He does not fulfill the new order constitutional requirements manipulated by Richard Milhous Nixon. (open door policy, peace with honor, satanic child sacrifice and torture).
4. He deserves a full moon for never appearing on Oprah.
5. He'll turn it down cuz the white house will be burning anyway and nobody wants to be his vp.

[Aplomb]

Oh oh, right in the checkout lines...

http://www.globemagazine.com/story/277



Obama - Born in the USA?

PRESIDENT-elect Barack Obama is being rocked by a series of shocking new lawsuits charging his election was illegal! GLOBE's special report reveals why some national leaders believe his Hawaiian birth certificate was forged - and that America's next commander-in-chief was born in Kenya, which could doom his presidency. It's must reading.

[Aplomb]

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/


December 14, 2008 · No Comments

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and
the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service
of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and
thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered;
yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict,
the more glorious the triumph.” —Thomas Paine 1778


To: 2008 Presidential Election Electoral College Electors
From: Citizen Wells



Electors,



You are being put into the uncomfortable position of having to
question your vote for president of the US. In the past, this
was a much simpler decision. Party politics has always been an
issue but in the past, after the general election, the rules
were fairly simple for you. You voted based on the party pledges
and state rules without giving it much thought. The duty to vote
in the manner as directed by the US Constitution has always been
there, but you never had to be concerned about violating it.


The 2008 Election year is unique in American History. Early in
2008 questions arose about the eligibility of John McCain and
Barack Obama to be president. John McCain put to rest any doubts
by presenting to Congress a vault copy of his birth certificate.



As the year progressed and more was learned about Obama’s history
and evasive attitude, more people began questioning Obama’s
eligibility. Several attempts were made on various websites to put
the issue to rest by presenting copies of what were alleged to be
COLB, Certificate of Live Birth. A COLB is a record of birth and
is not a legal verification of location of birth and other birth
facts.


On August 21, 2008, Philip J Berg filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia
Federal Court demanding that Barack Obama provide proof of eligibility.
Mr. Berg provided many details surrounding Obama’s past such as
Obama’s probable birth in Kenya, travel forbidden to American
citizens in Pakistan and Obama’s school records and other records’
that Obama has kept hidden from scrutiny. Many lies and deception
have been initiated by the Obama camp. One of the more interesting
ones is an AP report that tried to insinuate that Hawaiian Health
Department officials stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. They
did not state that.


Many other lawsuits have developed from the Berg lawsuit including
the Alan Keyes lawsuit in CA. Obama has spents hundreds of thousands
of dollars and employed multiple law firms to avoid proving his
eligibility. Lawsuits are still alive in the US Supreme Court and
many state courts. Lawsuits place the burden of proof on the
plaintiff and require very strict legal wording.


Why are you being put in the position of questioning your vote and
complying with the US Constitution? The Constitution gives the power
and control over elections to the states through the vote of the
Electoral College. State laws vary greatly but to various degrees
define how candidates get on the ballot and other rules controlling
the election process. Some states define the method of challenging
or ensuring that a candidate is qualified. Regardless, the states
do have the power and the duty to ensure that a presidential
candidate is qualified to take office.


Why are the states not requiring that a presidential candidate is
qualified? The short answer is that they are passing the buck. The
long answer is that tradition, politics and political parties are
driving the process when in fact political parties are given no
power or authority by the US Constitution. The typical answer
given by a secretary of state or other state election official is
that they get their cue from the political party as to who gets
put on the ballot and some even state that it is the responsibility
of the party to vet the candidate. While I see no problem getting
names for ballots from the political party, that does not remove
the Constitutional duty of the states. This is a blatant violation
of duty by state officers, election officials and judges and could
fall under “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”


To make matters worse, the US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, in
regard to several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be
president, have not addressed three distinct constitutional issues
that need to either be ruled on or clarified:

• Obama’s eligibility to be president and the relevance of natural
  born citizen.
• Clarification of state powers and duties to ensure that Electoral
  College Electors have a qualified candidate on the ballot to vote for.
• Applicability of oaths taken to uphold and defend the Constitution
  to the election process. Marbury V Madison is clear on oaths. Why are
  the states ignoring this?

No one wants to take responsibility. Why? Many of the reasons are
obvious. Party politics, fear of offending someone, fear of riots,
ignorance, tradition.


Electors. You are in a unique position. We have a system of checks and
balances in this country that has served us well over the centuries.



Our Founding Fathers had witnessed the monarchies and totalitarion
regimes prevalent in much of their world. They did not want that. That
is why we have executive, legislative and judicial branches and that
is also why we have an Electoral College system of voting for president.



The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to achieve two
primary goals.To prevent smaller states and lower population areas from
being dominated by a few larger states with higher population densities
and to prevent a tyrant or usurper of power from deceiving an uninformed
populace.


Consider the following quotes:
Alexander Hamilton echoed the thoughts of many of the founding
fathers when he wrote in the Federalist Papers: “afraid a tyrant could
manipulate public opinion and come to power.”



“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”
Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.


Electors, you have a duty to uphold the US Constitution. As Harry Truman
said, “The buck stop here.” You can blindly follow party propaganda or
you can act as concerned Americans and do the right thing. What do other
concerned Americans expect from you? That you make certain that the
candidate that you vote for is qualified under the US Constitution,
nothing more, nothing less.


This is so simple a school child can understand it. Why would Barack
Obama spend so much money, time and resources to avoid proving his
eligibilty. The answer is obvious. Obama is not qualified. However,
all you have to do is demand that he provide legitimate, legal, proof
and you can rest easy knowing you have done your job, your duty to
this country and the US Constitution.


One person, one vote can make a difference:


1860 election: 4 electors in New Jersey, pledged for Stephen Douglas,
voted for Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln.


Those Electors helped save the Union.


Electoral College Questions and Answers

[Aplomb]

http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2...0026145198.txt

Justices Pass On 2nd Certificate Lawsuit



By John P. Connolly, The Bulletin

Published: Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it has turned down another case relating to President-elect Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.

The suit, filed by Cort Wrontowski of Connecticut, argued that Mr. Obama could not serve because he held dual citizenship at birth, due to his father’s Kenyan citizenship. The suit tested uncharted legal waters, asserting that dual citizenship at birth cannot be construed as “natural-born” citizenship, as is required by the Constitution for the office of the president.

Mr. Wrontowski’s case, dismissed without comment from the court, closely resembled a similar case filed by a New Jersey man. The Supreme Court also dismissed that case.

Several other court cases surrounding the controversy over Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president are still progressing. Berg v. Obama, filed by a Pennsylvania deputy attorney general, argues that Mr. Obama was not born in the U.S., but in Kenya.


Continued On Page 6The case is awaiting consideration by the Supreme Court.

Lightfoot v. Bowen and Keyes v. Bowen are both hoping for legal proof that Mr. Obama is eligible to serve as president. The latter case has been filed with the California Supreme Court, which dismissed other cases because the plaintiffs were not presidential candidates. Lightfoot v. Bowen applied to the U.S. Supreme Court late last week.

In Washington state, 12 voters have filed a suit, asserting that the Secretary of State failed to impose the constitutional requirements on Mr. Obama to get on the state’s ballot. The case, called Broe v. Reed, is scheduled to be heard en banc at the Washington Supreme Court on Jan. 8.

“The issue of standing seems to be behind us,” said Stephen Pidgeon, counsel for the plaintiffs. “What remains is to establish the duty of the secretary of state, under Article III, Sections 4 and 17 of the Washington constitution, under RCW 29A.04.230 which names the secretary as the state’s chief of elections, and under relevant administrative codes which also require the secretary to act.”

In Washington state, the secretary of state has a constitutionally imposed duty to determine if the candidate is telling the truth in his election application.

John P. Connolly can be reached at jconnolly@thebulletin.us.

[samizdat]

woops- the dingbat slipped in. What a lineup- bama, biden, pelosi, hilarious. And to top it off- the supreme dopes can only declare an election candidate ineligible- what 4??--- Biden slides in or the dnc annoints a candidate for the democommies to elect.

Sad story. Forced abortion and gay frivolity pimped upon the telly tubers. Pumped up with avaricious atheism and megabucks from China and Russia.

I still think bama is toast, but God only knows who can warm up his hind side to resign. Could it be his funding pals? That would mean Chinese and Russian SCO interests control the potus/media/cabinet.

[vector7]

THE RAMIFICATION OF THE SCOTUS INACTION

By Lynn Stuter

December 16, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

On December 5, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), in conference, decided to address Donofrio vs Wells by not addressing it; by simply denying the writ of certiorari.

On December 12, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, in conference, decided to address Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, et al, by not addressing it; by simply denying the application to stay the election and denying the injunction disallowing the Electoral College to vote on December 15, 2008.

There are more lawsuits in the works; it is doubtful SCOTUS will give them a hearing either; choosing, instead, to simply side-step the issue without explanation or justification.

What are the ramifications of the SCOTUS refusal to address the issue of the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution?

Edwin Vieira, a constitutional attorney, has written two very good articles on this subject:

In the Shadow of Nemesis
Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down

He has also been quoted in these articles on WorldNetDaily:

Eligibility Dispute Story Spreads
Imagine Guru: ‘Certification’ of birth time, locations a fake

After reading these articles, one realizes, of course, that the ramifications will be far-reaching if SCOTUS continues to side-step this issue.

But let’s look at this from another angle.

Barack Hussein Obama has provided us the avenue to do away with a government that is so far out of control that it’s like a car careening down an ice-covered road. You know it’s out of control; you know it’s going to crash; it’s just a matter of when and where.

How, you ask, has Barack Hussein Obama provided us this avenue?

Follow the reasoning here.

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is the judicial branch established by the U.S. Constitution. Granted they are no longer the judicial branch but the legal arm of the statist regime, but that’s a story for another time. Here, we shall stick to the intent of the U.S. Constitution, as established and, at this time, still in force. On January 20, 2009, that may not be the case.

The U.S. Constitution requires all justices to take an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. In refusing to hear Donofrio vs Wells and Wrotnowski vs Bysiewicz, et al, challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of president as required by Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution, SCOTUS has refused their charge to defend the U.S. Constitution in the name of the people of the United States whom they serve. The sum result of their refusal is to declare the United States Constitution null and void. To repeat, the sum result of their refusal is to declare the United States Constitution null and void.

I want to thank “Borderraven” for the aforementioned. Right on!

The ramifications of SCOTUS declaring the U.S. Constitution null and void are far-reaching. First and foremost; the United States of America no longer exists. As such,

1. POTUS, SCOTUS and Congress no longer have a job. They can all go home where they will have no pensions and no job, just like all the people whose jobs they’ve sold to foreign countries via NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT.

2. All U.S. government employees no longer have a job. They can all go home. The list this covers is quite extensive but would include the military, federal law enforcement (including the CIA), prisons—everything the federal government has got its fingers into including the Federal Bank of Thievery (commonly known as the Federal Reserve Bank) and the Infernal Revenue Service or IRS.

3. Each of the fifty states that came together to form the union of states known as the United States of America is now a sovereign nation, with its own government and own capital already established. No longer will the federal government be meddling in state affairs under the banner of “Big Brother knows best.”

4. All the federal laws, passed since the United States of America was formed, no longer have force of law, cannot be enforced. They are now relegated to the scrap heap of what once was a great nation.

Just think …

1 - The national debt has just been wiped out! No longer are we burdened by the debt of the tax and spend Congress!

2 - No longer will there be a CIA to meddle in the affairs of other nations. Other nations will, no doubt, appreciate that! Of course, other nations will also have to stand on their own two feet and take care of their own. Too bad if they can’t. No more crying to the United States of America for protection and no more foreign aid.

3 - No longer will there be an FBI to murder innocent civilians as happened at Waco in Texas and Ruby Ridge in Idaho.

4 - No more will there be jack-booted thugs repelling down buildings in various cities across the U.S. in the dead of night, scaring people to death as they carry out their urban warfare training exercises.

5 - No longer will our young men and women be sent to invade foreign lands because of some egotistical whack-job in the Oval Office who sees them as fodder in the grist mills of imperial expansionism.

6 - No longer will DC be interfering in the education of our children, dumbing them down through behaviorally oriented systems education.

7 - No more arguing over whether the 16th Amendment was really ratified or not and whether it applies to the product of one’s labor; the point just became moot.

8 - No more stealing from the American taxpayers to bailout the federal government’s Wall Street buddies.

The list is endless but you no doubt get the idea.

Just think of all the money the people will save by not having the U.S. government stealing from them at every turn!

President Bush can turn out the lights as he leaves the White House for the last time on January 20, 2009. He can retire to his new living quarters where he can bow before the craven image of the Allah he believes is the same as God; read the Bible that he believes “is probably just a story”; and worship at the alter of evolution that he believes is just as viable an explanation of the creation of all we see about us as what the Bible tells us. We will be forever spared the prospect of another buffoon holding the executive power Bush held for the last eight years that he used to destroy and dismantle this country executive order by executive order!
We wish him god-speed (the god of his choice, of course) as he starts his new life, hopefully in Cuba! A fitting place for a man who thought the U.S. Constitution was just a “g-d piece of paper”. Of course, there will be no pension for any of the former commanders-in-thief who are still kicking! The same is true of retired Congress-critters!

All the federal office buildings, so prominent on the DC skyline, will stand empty and deserted; the statues and monuments a constant reminder of a country that was once strong, vibrant, and free but that is no more.

The last joker off Capitol Hill, please turn out the lights!!!

Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama! You ran on a platform of “change”, and change we got thanks to you, thanks to SCOTUS refusing to uphold their oaths of office, thereby doing themselves and their fellow federal servants out of a job.

And to think the estimated 67,000,000 million people who voted for you had no idea, when they voted for you, just what kind of “change” they were going to bring about!

Yes we can … oh, yes, we can …

“Free at last, free at last, Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!!!!” —Martin Luther King

Let’s celebrate!

[Toad]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w073952S69.DTL

Justice Kennedy rejects 2 more challenges to Obama



Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has rejected two more efforts to get the court to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is eligible to take office.

Kennedy on Wednesday denied without comment an appeal by Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, that claims Obama is either a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia and is ineligible to be president because he is not a "natural-born citizen" of the U.S. as required by the Constitution. Another appeal from California, based on Berg's claims, also was denied.

Individual justices and the entire court have turned down emergency appeals over Obama's eligibility at least seven times in the past six weeks.

Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to an American mother and a Kenyan father.
Reacting to Internet-fueled conspiracy theories that Obama's birth certificate is a fake, Hawaiian officials have said they examined the document and have no doubt it is authentic.

[Aplomb]

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...w&pageId=83851

Investigator casts doubt on Obama's birth residence
Neighbor believes family didn't live at address in newspaper announcement

Posted: December 16, 2008
10:09 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

[COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Barack [COLOR=blue ! important]Obama[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and his mother, Anne Dunham

A private investigator has released to WND an affidavit that casts doubt on whether Barack Obama's family lived at the address listed in the published notice of his birth in 1961.


Jorge Baro was hired by WND to investigate issues related to Obama's birth amid allegations the [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Democrat[/COLOR][/COLOR] does not meet the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen."


Baro's affidavit documents an interview his staff conducted with Beatrice Arakaki, who has lived at 6075 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu since before Obama was born.


The affadivit is at the center of a federal lawsuit filed prior to the November election in Hattiesburg, Miss., before U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett. The suit is one of several yet to be adjudicated that calls for proof of Obama being a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution.


Baro is the in-house senior investigator for Elite Legal Services, LLC, in Royal Palm Beach, Fla.



In Hawaii, WND was able to locate at the Honolulu public library microfilm of a notice placed in the Sunday Advertiser Aug. 13, 1961. The announcement in the "Births, Marriages, Death" section read: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4."


Arakaki told Baro's investigators she had no recollection of Obama being born or of the family living next door having a black child born to a white mother.


Baro sent a team of investigators to Honolulu to explore records regarding current residents of Kalanianaole Highway and to track down residents back to 1961.


Baro's investigators were unable to locate any current or past resident of Kalanianaole Highway who could recall Obama or his family living at the address listed in the Sunday Advertiser announcement.

Baro also sent investigators to the newspaper offices to examine files, but the Advertiser could not confirm who actually placed the ad.


According to Baro's affidavit, Beatrice Arakaki affirmed she was a neighbor of the address listed. She has lived at her current residence of 6075 Kalanianaole Highway from before 1961 to the present.


Moreover, Arakaki said she believed that when Obama lived with the Dunhams, his grandparents, the family address was in Waikiki, not on Kalanianaole Highway.


Baro was able to determine the previous owners of the residence at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – the alleged address of Obama's parents when he was born – were Orland S. and Thelma S. (Young) Lefforge, both of whom are deceased.


Baro's affidavit also documents that the Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted on his campaign website is not the original "long form" birth certificate issued in 1961 by the obstetrician or [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]physician[/COLOR][/COLOR] giving birth and the hospital where the [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]baby[/COLOR][/COLOR] was born.


Baro's investigators learned that a "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program" established in 1911 during the territorial era and terminated in 1972 during the statehood era allowed Hawaiian residents to apply for a "Late Birth Certificate," called a "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth," which appears identical to the "birth certificate" Obama posted on his campaign website.


"This raised the question in my mind as to whether the 'Certification of Live Birth,' which is the only document that has been produced and as previously stated solely handled by the representatives of factcheck.org outside Obama's campaign, is a certification of a live birth or a late birth," Baro stated in his affidavit.


"I am left with the conclusion that a simple request from Senator Barack Obama to produce the 'long form' (redacted if necessary) would end any speculation or question as to his birthplace," Baro's affidavit continued. "His continued denial to do so is suspect, in my professional opinion."


Baro also pointed out that factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which "is at the center of the ongoing Obama-Bill Ayers controversy – hardly an unbiased source for information in my view."

[Aplomb]

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1974#comments

Thomas v. Hosemann: MS Federal Lawsuit, WND Coverage

December 17th, 2008


Daniel Scott Thomas, an Elector for California and numerous other Plaintiffs in Thomas v. Hosemann had filed suit (article from Gulf Coast News, December 5) in federal court in Mississippi against Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann:

The Mississippi lawsuit was filed November 3, prior to the election, and to date it has received no press coverage within Mississippi and virtually nowhere else either. …


In the Mississippi case titled Thomas et al vs Hosemann the plaintiffs are seeking to require Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann to verify proof of citizenship from all of the presidential candidates. The lawsuit also seeks to require the Secretary of State to establish a standard procedure for verifying candidate’s qualifications, including citizenship, which currently does not exist.


According to Jackson attorney James Bell, of Bell and Associates, who is representing Thomas and other plaintiffs, the case is still being considered.



A motion to dismiss the lawsuit has been filed by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, a democrat, in behalf of Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, a republican. However, Judge Starrett has yet to act on the motion. …


Bell says GCN is the first media outlet to actually call his office about the Mississippi Obama citizenship case.


GCN contacted Secretary of State Hosemann’s office. A spokesperson had no comment on the case or the status of the lawsuit.

WorldNetDaily covers why this particular suit is so important…



A private investigator has released to WND an affidavit [PDF file] that casts doubt on whether Barack Obama’s family lived at the address listed in the published notice of his birth in 1961.


Jorge Baro was hired by WND to investigate issues related to Obama’s birth amid allegations the Democrat does not meet the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”


Baro’s affidavit documents an interview his staff conducted with Beatrice Arakaki, who has lived at 6075 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu since before Obama was born.


The affadivit is at the center of a federal lawsuit filed prior to the November election in Hattiesburg, Miss., before U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett. The suit is one of several yet to be adjudicated that calls for proof of Obama being a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.


Baro is the in-house senior investigator for Elite Legal Services, LLC, in Royal Palm Beach, Fla. …


According to Baro’s affidavit, Beatrice Arakaki affirmed she was a neighbor of the address listed. She has lived at her current residence of 6075 Kalanianaole Highway from before 1961 to the present.


Moreover, Arakaki said she believed that when Obama lived with the Dunhams, his grandparents, the family address was in Waikiki, not on Kalanianaole Highway.


Baro was able to determine the previous owners of the residence at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway – the alleged address of Obama’s parents when he was born – were Orland S. and Thelma S. (Young) Lefforge, both of whom are deceased.

[Aplomb]

http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/200...nsibility.html

From Kay Walker at the Illinois Secretary of State's office:

In Illinois a candidate has to file petitions, statement of candidacy, loyalty oath (optional) and a statement of economic interest (if applicable). Different offices take a different amount of signatures. For a U. S. Senator they need at least 5,000 signature and no more than 10,000. We do not count signatures when a candidate files. If a senate candidate files only 500 signatures and no one objects to his petitions he is on the ballot. If you need more information please call me. (number redacted)

Today Your Fellow Citizen posted this regarding their latest interaction:

I had a very interesting and enlightening correspondence with Kay Walker from the Illinois Secretary of State's office this morning. The conversation ended with a phone call, in which I had something of an epiphany. Ms. Walker was explaining to me that it isn't the job of the SoS to verify candidate eligibility, but that it was his job to remove a candidate whose qualifications had been challenged and found lacking. All of a sudden I realized that the critical piece in the puzzle was the citizen who challenged the candidate's qualifications in the first place. It really isn't the job of the Secretary of State to check these qualifications. It's our job, as American citizens, to be wary of the candidates who seek to represent us, and, if we feel so inclined, to force them to provide their credentials. We as a people have perhaps become a bit complacent in exercising our rights and duties as citizens of this country.

Nearly every state I've researched has laws that allow a citizen to challenge the credentials of any candidate on the ballot. Instead of pointing our fingers at our leaders, perhaps we would be better served by educating ourselves on the avenues available to us in this fine democracy of ours.

Personally speaking, everybody is passing the buck of responsibility on this one, and it only makes sense to me that it would come down to the lowliest U.S. citizen-- while simultaneously the courts are saying that a voter has no standing to bring suit on the matter. Go figure! Yet I can assure you of this...it isn't going to be over until it's actually over as many of us are taking every action possible in whatever ways we are individually and/or jointly able to get the Constitutional eligibility or ineligibility issue resolved.

[Aplomb]

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/t...d=1380&posts=3

Unconfirmed report that Rep. John Linder will object to Obama electoral count

John Linder to stand and object Obama at Electoral Count 12/17/2008 | Autumnraine Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 12:05:48 PM by autumnraine I read a post the other day that a Freeper got from Congressman John Linder, Georgia, stating that he would stand and object to Obama if he doesn't show proof of constitutional eligibility. I emailed Mr. Linder and asked if he did indeed write that email and if he was serious about holding Obama to task on something as serious as this. A few moments ago I received a phone call from Congressman Linder's office confirming that he intends to do exactly that and he is just as intent as us on verifying Obama's eligibility. I told his staffer (very nice lady) that I was proud of him and that I appreciated his bravery as I know he is going against the tide with this. She said that she herself was concerned as she had to show full, long form documentation to even work in the building for a Congressman and we shouldn't be told to just take someone's word for an office as important as POTUS. Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone know that at least one Congressman is standing up to this, even if the SCOTUS doesn't have the nerve to examine what would seem to be a reasonable question.

Posted 2008-12-17 12:51 PM (#4553) By: EternalVigilance

[Aplomb]

Confirmation on that blog, at the same link:

Yes that is correct John Called me as I live in GA and confirmed it. I can also say that I know for sure that Paul Broun Member of Congress feels this way. Here is the rub and the process as I understand it. I will do a copy and paste so be kind if I get it wrong. === "My own Congressman Linder has told me he will make a challenge when the electoral vote is presented. I am in hopes he understands he will need a senate member and it will need to be in writing but thought it best not to tell him how to do what he said he would do. I also understand that at times registered voters are appeased by words and not by deeds." === This at least might force Obama to provided a long form BC. Tex-

Posted 2008-12-17 4:43 PM (#4577 - in reply to #4553) By: Tex