Monday, December 15, 2008

Supreme Court Justices won't review Obama's eligibility to serve

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court has turned down another challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president because of his citizenship.

The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski of Greenwich, Conn., was denied Monday without comment.

Wrotnowski argued that Obama was a British subject at birth and therefore cannot meet the requirement for becoming president.

He wanted the high court to halt presidential electors from meeting to formally elect Obama as president.

Echoing an appeal that was rejected by justices last week, Wrotnowski said that since Obama had dual nationality at birth—his mother was American, his Kenyan father was a British subject—he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen."

At least two other appeals over Obama's citizenship remain at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and Hawaii officials have confirmed.

Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit. Federal courts in Ohio and Washington state have rejected similar lawsuits.

Allegations raised on the Internet say the birth certificate, showing that Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, is a fake.

But Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino and the state's registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, say they checked health department records and have determined there's no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.

The nonpartisan Web site examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document.

In addition, reproduced an announcement of Obama's birth, including his parents' address in Honolulu, that was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961.


RSS Feed
Email Subscribe
Tell a Friend


Ted said...

SCOTUS has now prevented itself from acknowleding the question whether Obama is or is not a “natural born citizen” (as distinguished from “citizen”) three times and counting: First before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors. Other cases on the same question are at, or are heading to, SCOTUS. Whether SCOTUS ultimately decides if Obama is or is not a “natural born citizen” only after the Electors vote, only after Congress acts on the Electors’ vote, prior to Obama’s inauguration, or only after Obama’s inauguration, SCOTUS will have to decide — or the people and/or the military will. The issue no longer is Obama. The issue is SCOTUS.

Anonymous said...

Freedom of the press is one thing. But, this thunderous silence that the media has bestowed upon us borders on conspiracy. A conspiracy to AVOID something…. not to avoid a Constitutional Crisis but rather a CONSTITUTIONAL VICTORY. Why? If We The People can force the truth to come to light then no matter what the outcome is, the outcome is RIGHT as long as it falls in line with the Constitution. Anytime the Constitution prevails, that should be celebrated. Period. But, the crisis will occur if we don’t get loud and vocal FAST!
People need to understand that Obama’s claim that he published his “birth certificat”e”, is a FALSE CLAIM. He published his birth certificat”ion”, not his birth certificat”e”. It is also NOT even a certified copy of his authentic birth certificat”e”. It is an official certificat”ion” of Obama’s birth in Hawaii by the person in charge in Hawaii. It is printed on Laser paper, which means its BRAND NEW, and not from 1961, the year he claims to have been born.
Details like the residency information on both the father/mother, both of their street addresses and their mailing addresses, a birth certificate number, sex and name of child, day & time of birth, city/town of birth, judicial district of birth, county/state/FOREIGN COUNTRY of birth, island name during birth, hospital name, number of children born, birth location farm/plantation, mothers type of work outside of home during pregnancy, [ father/mother race, father/mother occupation and date last worked, father/mother age, father/mother birth place ] date accepted by Registrar, date accepted by Registrar General, [signature of Parent, signature of Attendant MD, DO, Midwife, signature of Registrar, signature of Registrar General] This is the degree of specific personal information collect by the State of Hawaii in the 1960’s. Obama’s Certificat”ion” of Live Birth document carries only 14 of the 33 pieces of personal information. The document Obama has published on the internet carries less than half of the information normally collected by a standard Hawaiian birth certificat”e” application in 1961.
What you see on the internet simply states that Obama was born (or showed up) in Hawaii according to whoever printed out the form. It is a Certificat”ion”, not a Certificat”e” of Live Birth, which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
Back in 1961 the state of Hawaii allowed parents to apply for and receive Birth Certificates for their children even if they were born in a FOREIGN COUNTRY. The parent just listed the foreign country on the form and the certificat”e” was issued. This is why Berg is requesting to see Obama’s Original Vault Certificat”e” of Live Birth, it is because he suspects that the FOREIGN COUNTRY of birth box has Kenya located in it. If this is the truth Obama would be a Natural Born Citizen of the United Kingdom or Kenya and could not be a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. What Obama has published is not even as good as a drivers license and would not work for an ID even on a cruise ship or going to Mexico. Again, there is good reason it wouldn’t work and that is because you can actually request a state to correct your BC with an AFFIDAVIT AND CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION and they will type all the info. in that you fill out on their form, without ever even looking at your Certificat”e” of Live Birth. So what you really have on record is the amended version, and unless you actually see the Original Vault Certificat”e” of Live Birth, you would never even know that there was a difference or even that an original certificat”e” existed at all.
The issuer of the short form, which Obama is displaying, is simply printing out whatever was typed into the computer from a Certificate of Correction Form sent to them by Obama. This is the reason for Obama’s document to be listing only 14 out of 33 points of information.
I find it to be absolutely incredible that Obama actually believes the American public does not understand the possible fraud he may have committed within the fabrication of his Certificat”ion” document, and his direct inference that it is his official Birth Certificat”e”. It is not his Certificat”e” as he claims, it is in fact only a Hawaii Certificat”ion” of the information he wants the world to believe. There is significant evidence that Obama’s birth certificat”ion” image that the DNC claims to be genuine, is, in fact, a rather clumsy forgery. Just type “Obama birth certificate forgery” into your favorite search engine and read all about it. Don’t be fooled by the links to the multiple “Stop the Smears” websites - those sites contain the images of the birth certificat”ion” document whose authenticity is in question. If Obama wanted to put the controversy to rest, a good way to start would be to immediately produce his Original Vault Birth Certificat”e” for the public’s examination.

Ted said...

Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II "natural born citizen" based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama's father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a "citizen" born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution -- the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors -- it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II "natural born citizen".