Martes, 12 de octubre de 2010

Why BHO Cannot be a Legal President

Print This Post


by Cynthia Wilson

Why was this candidate for President of the United States not asked for any documentation proving his eligibility?

(Oct. 12, 2010) ? This editorial is pragmatic: Barack Hussein Obama has never provided any court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents**. If he had, we would know. We do not know factually who BHO?s parents are, what his real name is, where he was born, nor when. Obama once said, ?The only people who don?t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.?

Obama also said, ?I can?t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered to my forehead.? This statement is true, since he does not have a court-vetted U.S. birth certificate and it?s also a good distraction from his Article II ineligibility.

We know McCain showed documents during the campaign to demonstrate his constitutional eligibility, which had been challenged before. BHO had never been vetted, and because he has failed to demonstrate any evidence of eligibility, the 20th amendment should have precluded him from assuming the presidency.

In many states, proof of eligibility is required for various offices, including the presidency. Since this documentation does not exist for BHO, the various state agencies responsible for balloting presidential candidates where specific proof of constitutional eligibility is required have failed to uphold their respective state laws.? They have also failed the citizens of their states and the nation.

Below are four state laws which were not upheld in the case of BHO. In Hawaii, South Carolina and Texas, state laws require the Party to certify constitutional eligibility. In Texas and South Carolina, this was done without any court-vetted documents. In Hawaii, it appears that the state Democratic Party refused to certify constitutional eligibility; therefore, Nancy Pelosi, as representative of the Democrat National Committee, signed a nomination form stating that Obama and Biden were qualified.? However, that document was filed only in Hawaii; the other 49 states received a nomination form which did not contain that language.? Again, it appears that Pelosi signed the Hawaii form without any court-vetted documents.

In Arizona, the state statute requires proof of eligibility to be filed along with Nomination Papers, but there is no evidence that it was ever done. However, BHO was balloted anyway:

1. Arizona: BHO Signs Affidavit But Provides No Required Documentation Proof of Eligibility

Arizona: 16-311. Nomination papers; filing; definitions

All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.

In December 2007, BHO swore he was a ?Natural Born Citizen of the United States? on a notarized form which he submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State to participate in that state?s Presidential Preference Election (primary). BHO signed an affidavit of eligibility BUT did not include facts sufficient to prove that eligibility. State Rep. Judy Burgess?s (R) recently-proposed bill to require proof of eligibility is superfluous and a diversion, since Arizona already requires facts sufficient to show eligibility, and facts require evidence, which BHO failed to provide.

On September 27, 2010, a researcher contacted the Arizona Secretary of State at (602) 542-4285 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(602) 542-4285??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting‎ and asked, ?What documents were used to fulfill state statute 16-311 in regard to the presidential election in 2008??

An eight-minute hold ensued, after which the researcher was told, ?There was an affidavit that was filed.?? The researcher asked, ?By Barack Obama?? The answer was ?Yes.?

The researcher then asked, ?Was that all?? and the clerk answered, ?Yes. If there was anything else it is across the street.? It?s been two years; I can?t remember.? Are you asking about some birth certificate?? The media person, Matt Benson, will have to call.?

On September 28, 2010, Matt Benson called the researcher and left a message. The researcher returned the call at (602) 350-2834 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(602) 350-2834??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting and left a message. On September 30,? Mr. Benson left a message, saying ?I?m confused as to what documents (you?d) be looking for.?? (Note:? The AZ statute requires ?facts sufficient to show that?the candidate will be qualified??; ?facts? require evidentiary support, and none was provided.)

On October 7, 2010, the researcher called Mr. Benson as a follow-up and asked, ?Can we get specific information about the evidentiary support for ?facts? for 16-311? A person can?t attest to something they cannot witness, so they cannot swear an affidavit for place of their own birth as a ?fact.?? Mr. Benson answered, ?No other documents were provided besides Mr. Obama?s affadavit; candidates for office can self-attest to their eligibility by Arizona law.?? The researcher asked where this was written.? He then said, ?I?ll have to talk to our attorney, and I will get back to you.?

Later that day the researcher received a letter from Mr. Benson to which was attached Mr. Obama?s sworn affidavit.

Page 1 of notarized, signed statement from BHO attesting that he met the constitutional qualifications to run for president

Page 2 of signed, notarized statement from BHO

Mr. Benson wrote a letter stating that the applicable statute in this instance was:

ARS 16-242 Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper
A. A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States shall sign and cause to be filed with the secretary of state a nomination paper that contains the following information:
1. The name, residence address and mailing address of the candidate.
2. The name of the recognized political party from which the person seeks nomination.
3. The name and address of the chairman of the candidate?s state committee.
4. The exact manner for printing the candidate?s name on the presidential preference ballot pursuant to section 16-311.
B. The nomination paper shall be filed not less than fifty days nor more than seventy days before the presidential preference election and not later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day for filing.
C. Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.
D. Within seventy-two hours after the close of filing the secretary of state shall certify to the officer in charge of elections the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.

Mr. Benson wrote:? ?As I indicated when we last spoke, Arizona law requires that candidates for local, state and federal office self-attest to their eligibility. I?ve attached the form that Mr. Obama submitted prior to Arizona?s Presidential Preference Election. Following the Democratic National Convention, the party filed additional forms with our office identifying Mr. Obama as the Democratic nominee for president.?

The researcher wrote to Mr. Benson about the omission of 16-311 for facts to be filed along with the nomination paper prescribed by 16-242, and a summary statement:? ?For my take-away, you?re (Mr. Benson) stating per ARS 16-311 that Barack Obama never provided to the Arizona Secretary of State any ?facts sufficient to show?the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks; he presented only the personal affidavit portion.? Correct me if I?m wrong.? Thank-you.?

The researcher did not receive any correction from the Arizona Secretary of State?s office to this take-away statement.? Apparently the Arizona Secretary of State by tacit admission then agrees that ARS 16-311 was never upheld.? No 16-311 Subsection A affidavit with facts sufficient to show eligibility was ever provided when filing nomination papers for Barack Obama, yet he was still balloted in Arizona.

The 205 Arizona Code Revised, Statute 16-351, allows for challenges to eligibility of any candidate to be placed on the state ballot.

2.?? ?Hawaii Democratic Committee Refuses to Certify Constitutional Eligibility, Pelosi Steps In, No Documents Ever Shown

Hawaii statute ?11-113, Presidential ballots.

(c)? All candidates for president and vice president of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:

(1)? In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A)? The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B)? A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

As opposed to all former Democratic candidates such as Gore and Kerry, the Hawaii Democratic Committee refused to qualify BHO as constitutionally eligible in 2008 as required by Hawaii law in order to be placed on the ballot.? Instead, they attested to his being chosen by acclamation (popularity).? The attorney for the Hawaii Democratic Party is William H. Gilardy, Jr., who was also the attorney for Stanley Ann Soetoro in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro.? Therefore, Mr. Gilardy might know the exact birth circumstances of BHO (key pages of the Soetoro divorce documents were redacted).

To meet Hawaii statutory requirements, Nancy Pelosi signed a notarized nomination certificate affirming that BHO was eligible to serve as president according to the U.S. Constitution, yet she apparently used no court-vetted probative contemporaneous documents to do so.? However, in submitting Mrs. Pelosi?s testimony of BHO?s constitutional eligibility, the Secretary of State of Hawaii has legally cited Mrs. Pelosi who could therefore be held liable if she had no probative contemporaneous documents (which do not exist) as the basis of her testimony, which would then be contrived.

On September 28, 2010, the Hawaii Elections Commission was called at (808) 453-8683 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(808) 453-8683??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

The researcher asked, ?Why did the Hawaii Democratic Committee refuse to qualify Barack Obama as constitutionally eligible??

The answer was, ?You will have to call the Hawaii Democratic Committee. Their number is (808) 596-2980 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(808) 596-2980??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting.?

The researcher then called the Hawaii Democratic Committee and asked, ?Why did you refuse to qualify Barack Obama as constitutionally eligible??

The answer was, ?I don?t know what you mean.?

The researcher explained, ?Well, the language was changed in the HDC candidate form between that of Kerry and Gore whereby constitutional eligibility was noted, to that of Barack Obama whereby only acclamation was noted, and Nancy Pelosi vouched for his constitutional eligibility per Hawaii law requirements.?

The HDC?s response was, ?What?s your email?? I?ll have the chair get back to you.?? As of publication, the researcher has not heard back.

On September 28, 2010, the researcher contacted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?s office at (202) 225-0100 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(202) 225-0100??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting and asked, ?What documents were used to certify constitutional eligibility for the Hawaii Democratic Committee??

The staffer said, ?Oh, hold on a minute and I?ll get someone to help you.?? The call was then transferred to House Speaker?s COMMENT LINE, where a message was left, but she received no return call.

3.?? ?The Texas Democratic Party Chair Attested To Obama?s eligibility With No Documentation Ever Shown


A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:? (1)? the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;


Boyd Richie, Chairman of the Texas Democrat Party

Boyd Richie, the Texas Democratic Party Chair, attested to BHO?s Constitutional eligibility yet apparently used no court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documentation to do so.? Texas state law deems the chairs of state parties to be public officials who thus are obligated to Texas Freedom of Information laws.? However, Mr. Richie has defied all requests for information about the evidence he used to attest to BHO?s constitutional eligibility.? This is because there are no court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents for BHO and therefore Mr. Richie used no evidence.

On September 28, 2010, the Texas Secretary of State Chief Elections Officer?s office was called at (800) 252-8683 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(800) 252-8683??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting and the researcher asked, ?What documents were used to support 192.031??

They responded: ?The only documentation filed was an application with the party (Texas Democratic Party) about qualification.?

The researcher then asked:? ?Were any supporting documents filed?? and the staffer answered, ?I don?t know if anything else was filed; you?d have to ask the party.?

The researcher then asked, ?Didn?t Mr. Boyd Richie defy all attempts to glean information about documents that he used?? and he answered, ?I don?t know anything about that.?

4.?? ?South Carolina Democratic Committee Treasurer Certifies Eligibility, No Documents Used

South Carolina:? SECTION 7-11-20. Conduct of party conventions or party primary elections generally; presidential preference primaries.

Political parties must verify the qualifications of candidates prior to certifying to the State Election Commission the names of candidates to be placed on primary ballots. The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each certified candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules to participate in the presidential preference primary for which he has filed. Political parties must not certify any candidate who does not or will not by the time of the general election meet the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules for the presidential preference primary for which the candidate desires to file, and such candidate?s name must not be placed on a primary ballot.

In the fall of 2007, then-South Carolina Democratic Party Treasurer Kathy Hensley tried to deliver the South Carolina Democratic Committee Chair Carol Fowler?s list of candidates for the 2008 Presidential Preference primary to the South Carolina Elections Committee.? However, they wouldn?t accept it, because Ms. Fowler had left out the eligibility Certification.? To ?fix? the situation, Ms. Hensley scribbled out her own Certification, on the spot, again, without any probative court-vetted contemporaneous birth documents (or any evidence at all).

On September 28, 2010, the South Carolina Elections Commission was contacted at (803) 734-9060 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting??????????????(803) 734-9060??????end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

The researcher asked, ?Were any vetted birth documents used to support the certification by the SCDC?? and the answer was, ?Hold on a minute.?? The call was then put on hold and transferred to a Mr. Gary Baum of the SC Commission.? The researcher left a message with him and awaited a call back or email information.? Chris Webmier of Media Relations called back and said, ?Only a letter was presented by SCDC. I can send it to you, but no other documents were used.?? (Since the letter is linked above no request was made after it.)


Kathy Hensley, South Carolina Democrat Committee Treasurer

The South Carolina Democrat Committee Presidential Primary Ballot Request is here.

So in at least four states, BHO failed to qualify for legal balloting per the laws of each state, since no statement of fact can be made without vetted evidence.

BHO has failed the requirement to be qualified to be ?President of the United States? at the Constitutional level (cannot ?be? a legal president per the Constitution):

The 20th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. 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; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

At the federal level, BHO has failed to qualify by vetted birth documents.? BHO failed to qualify to serve as President with any court-vetted probative contemporaneous birth documents by January 20, 2009.? Neither the Oath of Office nor the Joint Session to ascertain electoral college tallies has any language about qualifying the president-elect as constitutionally eligible.? Therefore BHO has never been qualified and cannot be a constitutionally legal president, no matter whose fault it is that he was not called to be qualified.

The 20th Amendment of the Constitution says that if a President elect ?fails to qualify? by January 20th, the Vice President elect is to ?act as President? until a President qualifies.? Because the procedure to determine Obama?s birthplace and other qualifying factors has never occurred, we know that Obama could not have ?qualified? by January 20th. Anyone who certified his eligibility perjured him/herself since neither his age, name, nor birthplace has been definitively proven.? Certainly no qualification by Congress of BHO is on the record utilizing any vetted documentation to establish the facts.

The president elect becomes president automatically at noon on January 20th, but there are TWO Constitutional requirements which must be met before a sitting president can ?act as president? or exercise the presidential powers: he must take the oath of office, and he must ?qualify.?? Doing one of the two is not enough and in no way impacts the need to meet the other requirement.? Obama has ?failed to qualify? and the only person the 20th Amendment allows to ?act as president? is Joe Biden, until a president qualifies.


Image of John McCain's original long-form birth certificate stating that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone


The vetting of John McCain by the Senate via Senate Resolution 511 means Democrats were the original birthers! Is this scrutiny of McCain but not Obama more anti-white discrimination?? McCain was compelled to produce his court-vetted long-form birth certificate in 2008, but Obama, who ironically examined McCain?s qualifications, was never required to produce any documentation himself.

McCain was born in Panama while his father was on active duty in the U.S. Navy.? Vattel defines a ?natural born Citizen? as ?born in-country of citizen parents,? with the singular exception of birthplace for children born ?in the armies of the state,? but still of parents who are citizens.

Vattel, Sec. 217.? Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

Whereas McCain?s status as a natural born Citizen was arguable, BHO?s was impossible.? The result of the Senate?s 20th Amendment vetting of McCain?s eligibility, which was sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill and cosponsored by Barack Obama, reads:

?Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen? under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.?

However, John McCain was not born on a military base (even though a newspaper microfiche incorrectly says he was born on a submarine base hospital (page 3), he could not have been for it was not built until five years after McCain?s birth, and no hospital is listed in a 1936 description of the compound).? His birth certificate states that McCain was born at Colon Hospital, which was outside of the Panama Canal Zone.

The birthplace statement in SR511 is deliberately inaccurate.? First, the Senate cannot deem anyone a natural born Citizen; only status-at-birth makes a person so, as Vattel asserts.? McCain was born in Panama proper, ?in the armies of the state.?? It appears that perhaps someone gave McCain inaccurate counsel by omitting Vattel?s other definition: that he might not qualify as a natural born Citizen because of his birthplace when he actually would have qualified as a natural born Citizen, having been born ?in the armies of the state.?? This would be the reason for the inaccuracy in McCain?s stated birthplace in SR511.? This seems to be a fake ?favor? to unnecessarily describe that birthplace as a military base, since it is illogical to think BHO would positively help McCain?s campaign.? The apparent quid pro quo McCain-silence about Obama?s obvious ineligibility appears to be cover for his own questionable eligibility so as to keep the issue out of the realm of public discourse.? The resolution cosponsored by BHO displays one other potential argument: that BHO knew himself that two US Citizen parents were required for a person to be a natural born Citizen.? Also, the microfiched birth announcement which by all facts cannot be correct, and for which an original newspaper does not exist, seems analogous to BHO?s microfiched birth announcement, which by all facts cannot be correct, and for which an original newspaper does not exist.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:11
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar