Obama one of many foreign born with Hawaiian COLB

Obviously, any Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates from Hawaii need extra attention paid to their constitutional eligibility.

“Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.

One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.

Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors not the least of these was the president of the first Chinese republic.  Sun Yat-sen was born to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States.  The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.”  Appears?  It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii.  Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?

The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.”

There is a small textural difference between COLBs issued to those who were born in hospitals with full documentation and those who were given Hawaiian birth status through an affidavit process:

And be sure to see this documented evidence that AKA Obama's COLB is different than other COLBs
AKA Obama COLB Filed But Never Accepted - Click Image For Full View

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/05/aka-obama-colb-filed-but-never-accepted.html

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html

Here is the revised law passed in 1982

Hawaii Issues Birth Certificates to Foreign Born Residents!
Here’s Hawaii saying it like it it. All Doubts Cleared my Friends.

[§338-17.8] 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.

A. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country“ (applies to adopted children).

B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.

C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.

D. Hawaiian law, however, expressly acknowledges that its system is subject to error. See, for example, HRS 338-17.

E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.

F. 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.”

Now that we all understand that you can be born in Madagascar, Russia, Norway, Brazil or even Kenya like Obama and still have a REAL birth certificate that both Snopes and Factcheck would say was real since they are real. That doesn’t mean you were born in Hawaii. Does this matter to America?

Barack Obama has as of November 27th 2008 spent over$500,000 U.S. to prevent others from seeing it. Why? Didn’t he already win the vote?

http://logisticsmonster.com/2008/12/04/foreigners-become-a-us-citizen-get-your-hawaii-birth-certificate-here/

Research help, Please

UPDATE: Found this but would still like a better source and proof that she has a Hawaiian COLB:

I would really like an image of the Hawaiian COLB in Maya's name.

Maya Kassandra SoetoroAugust 15, 1970 (1970-08-15) (age 38)Jakarta, Indonesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Soetoro-Ng

Maya Kassandra Soetoro Obama’s half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. And maybe Obama was born in Kenya and his birth was later registered in Hawaii. Hawaiian law allowed such a practice and Obama and Maya's mother probably knew about this loop hole for giving American citizenship to her children.

The practice of forgein born people obtaining Hawaiian COLB is well established. I want to attribute the practice to Obama's mother specifically. All of the articles about Maya's COLB are about how it was used to make the forged copy of the COLB Obama posted on his "smear" website. I have never seen a copy of Maya's COLB or even proof that it exists. That is what I am looking for.

Also see : Obama one of many foreign born with Hawaiian COLB

___________________________________________________

I found the comment below on this blog: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org/index.php?topic=2027.msg8075#msg8075

Maya has a Hawaiian COLB even though she was born in Jakarta. I wonder if she has a social security number? Has anyone done any research on her? I wonder if she's naturalized..

Also, this on Maya's personal page: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/dating/maya-soetoro-ng.htm

This is important information. If it can be nailed down from another source (hopefully more official) that Maya has a the same type of Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth as Obama even though she was born in Indonesia it proves that the COLB posted by Obama reveals nothing about where he was actually born.

Lawyers not allowed to hold office - The Commentary - The Missing 13th Ammendment

For years I have been saying that a member of the bar or any person who is a graduate of a law school should not be allowed to hold public office.

The Commentary - The Missing 13th Amendment

TITLES OF NOBILITY” AND “HONOR”
In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library’s oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this “missing” 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.
So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history — the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the “missing” 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.
In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.
Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.
The story of this “missing” Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment’s meaning and consequent current relevance.
MEANING of the 13th Amendment
The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” [Emphasis added.}
At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the “title of nobility” Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to “nobility”, “honour”, “emperor”, “king”, and “prince” lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.
Not so.
Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited “titles of nobility” several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though “titles of nobility” were already prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.
SIGNIFICANCE OF REMOVAL
To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th “titles of nobility” Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power.
Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as “Esquires” and received the “honor” of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This twotiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans’ political interests, the nation’s economic welfare, and the Constitution’s egalitarian spirit.
The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current government system.

Obama to Deep Six Marriage, Promote Cohabitation

Obama to Deep Six Marriage, Promote Cohabitation

Being raised by two married biological parents has considerable benefits for a child. By contrast, simple cohabitation by biological parents is highly unstable and does not deliver significant long-term benefits. On the other hand, sequential cohabitation by single mothers with men unrelated to the child can actually prove harmful to children. Unfortunately, it is the latter type of cohabitation that is celebrated in the New York Times article.

Actual marriage between biological parents continues to decline. In 2006, 38.5% of all children born in the U.S. were born out-of-wedlock, up from 28% in 1990. In 2006, the out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks was 70.7%, among Hispanics, 49.9% and among non-Hispanic whites, 26.6%.

The American left has traditionally regarded marriage as an imprisoning institution that makes women neurotic. Most women and children are seen as better off when freed from its shackles. Thus the left has watched the steady decline of marriage with indifference or quiet satisfaction. This scornful attitude persists despite the overwhelming evidence that the decline of marriage is the principal cause of child poverty and welfare dependence and is linked to a vast array of other social problems.

The Obama administration will almost certainly persist in this anti-marriage attitude despite occasional lip service to the contrary. For example, in keeping with the ongoing liberal saga of “defining deviance down”, the Obama team apparently plans to abolish the miniscule “black healthy marriage initiative” created by the Bush administration inside HHS and replace it with a “healthy families” program resting on the tired false premise that single parenthood, cohabitation, and marriage are interchangeable and all of equal value to children, adults and society. Further erosion of marriage within low income communities can be expected.

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/18/obama-to-deep-six-marriage-promote-cohabitation/

Does America have one honest, courageous senator?

Does America have one honest, courageous senator?

If God gives us one senator to take this to the Supreme Court, representatives will also be found.
This remains a critical time at the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and courts below. One lower court ruled in September that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear challenges to presidential candidates' eligibility until after Congress certifies Monday's Electoral College vote (mandated for January 8). This is now being tested by petitions to the SCOTUS seeking injunctions against that very certification.

Is the SCOTUS holding review of any of its earlier natural born Citizen cases as "pending," though the Donofrio and Wrotnowski petitions for injunction against the popular and Electoral College votes have been denied? Are they keeping them on file as it were, for potential reference or formal review, when further challenges to Obama's candidacy (in addition to the Berg case) occur, immediately after January 8?

On January 8, if at least one U.S. senator and at least one representative object to the certification of the Electoral College vote, they must confer and caucus. Then, if the Congress still certifies the vote for Obama, these objecting congressmen would theoretically have the greatest standing before the Supreme Court. Are there such members of Congress who will take this before the Court?

If not, who will the SCOTUS deem worthy of being granted a writ of certiorari -- to have their case given a formal review and decision? Upon what grounds? Who will come forward and whose case(s) will be allowed into the chamber?

These are questions I.O. is attempting to answer where possible, or at least provide a reasonable "weather report."

Some of these cases are based in large part, upon Barack Obama's foreign citizenship at birth, by inheritance from his father; others, chiefly about his withholding of his actual and original birth certificate.

Since Barack Obama's father (BHO I) was apparently an U.K. citizen when BHO II was born, by the original intent and understanding of the Constitution, he was never a natural born Citizen as that term was meant and therefore unable to serve as United States President. That, by the careful interpretation of the Constitution's framers, based upon authoritative sources, corroborated by pertinent contemporaneous commentary, and unhindered by case law. See I.O's "Daddy Says No! - Articles Assessing the Constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" Clause, Barack Hussien Obama I, and BHO II" among the articles below.

Then, there is the original, authoritative birth certificate. Why has Obama spent nearly $1M to keep it unseen? If it disqualifies him, Obama may be guilty of criminal fraud -- major criminal fraud.

Numerous of the civil cases also point out that due to his apparent Indonesian citizenship as a child, Obama has since become a naturalized citizen, or else he is an illegal alien.

Whatever Obama's particulars are (and America does deserve to see his actual birth certificate) there is no apparent "out" here -- no sound explanation but that Barack Obama is constitutionally disqualified from being sworn in, on January 20. His candidacy has been legally fictitious from the Iowa Caucuses, onward. Each ballot was an injury and insult to the Sovereign American Voter.

I.O. will also continue to refer to top links covering the Fitzgerald investigations, branching out from the prosecution of Obama's financier middle-man and slumlord, the Arab oil-moneyed Tony Rezko (his sentencing delayed again as he sings) and now extending to the charges against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and beyond.

http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/

ALSO SEE:
OK State Rep Mike Ritze to Persuade Sen. Inhofe to Challenge Obama

Obama Stop: Formal Request for Senator Inhofe (R-O...

John Linder to stand and object Obama at Electoral...

Obama's Hawaiian Vacation: Bodysurfing, Boogie-boarding, and Birth Certificate?

Obama's Hawaiian Vacation: Bodysurfing, Boogie-boarding, and Birth Certificate?

By Rick Saunders, America's Right

Berg v. Obama, perhaps the last case still standing--no pun intended ... okay, maybe a little--before the U.S. Supreme Court and drawing into question whether Barack Obama is eligible to serve as president goes before the Justices in conference on January 9, 2009.

At that conference, detailed earlier by America’s Right, the Justices will take up the question of whether Philip Berg’s petition for certiorari (the normal vehicle to compel the Court to review an asserted erroneous decision of a lower court) should be granted. The core issue, however, will not be whether Obama is a "natural born Citizen," a requirement of the U.S. Constitution for any person to be eligible to take office and serve as president. Rather, the threshold question will be whether Berg possesses the requisite "standing" or "stake in the outcome" of the substantive legal citizenship issue to warrant allowing him entry into the Court in the first place to even make the argument.

Thus far, several others have tried to get the issue before the Court, but none have yet succeeded. Meanwhile, the mainstream media--always attentive to the crying needs of the U.S. Supreme Court for those objective, unbiased facts necessary to make "correct" decisions on matters of importance--continues to either (a) ignore the substantive citizenship issue; (b) denigrate and trivialize the "tinfoil hat" nature of those who would have the temerity to even question Obama’s citizenship; or (c) do some not-so-stealth amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefing, camouflaged as "reporting," assuring everyone that Obama is, in fact, a natural born citizen.

One great example of that unfolding masquerade is now seen in the stories covering Obama’s family vacation to Hawaii. The only thing missing is the Family Truckster. Arriving there instead in a chartered United Airlines 767, the reporters dutifully relate that Obama is vacationing back "in his home state" and has returned to "his native Hawaii" for the holidays.

Home state? Native Hawaii? What, pray tell, happened to Illinois?

And, Virginia, lest you have any confusion over the objectives of the "amicus journalism" going on, the Associated Press and MSNBC go for the whole enchilada, assuring everyone--including, perhaps, those nine kind folks getting set to conference next January 9--that "[t]he president-elect was born in Hawaii." Here's more of that wonderful, hard-hitting journalism:



On their last family vacation to the islands in August, Obama went bodysurfing and took his daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, snorkeling at Hanauma Bay, a nature reserve that is one of Hawaii's most popular tourist destinations.
The family also visited the USS Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor, walked along the beach and ate shave ice.



In fairness, snorkeling and shave ice aside, it may very well be that Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. On the other hand, however, legitimate and substantive “non-tinfoil hat” questions remain which cast substantial, reasonable doubt on that claim. And, given the ease with which these questions could be answered by Obama through merely authorizing the full and complete disclosure of his "vault" birth certificate and related documents by Hawaiian authorities, including the Governor of Hawaii (who had ordered his birth records sealed), the burning and ever-pertinent question remains -- why does he continue to stonewall disclosure? If, as he inferentially claims, he is eligible to serve as president, the documents now sealed from public view should be unveiled.

If he is a natural born citizen and thus, presumably, has nothing to hide on the matter--and since the issue would be buried once and for all through disclosure, thereby promoting the "change" and governmental "transparency" he has promised--why won’t he just do it? Hey, he’s already there in Hawaii, fer cryin’ out loud, and the governor as well as the hospital's records vault custodian are but two phone calls and a short SUV convoy jaunt away.

They could even stop for more shave ice on the way back. Make it a family affair.

Regardless, Obama should heed Spike Lee’s advice and "do the right thing." We are not, after all, talking about a person’s eligibility to serve as PR spin-meister to Illinois Gov. Rod "Hot Rod" Blagojevich -- we’re talking about eligibility to serve as the president of the United States of America.

But don’t hold your breath. Don't bet the ranch, or the farm or the pineapple plantation that President-Elect Barack Obama will do anything of the sort. Messiahs, after all, don’t stoop to things like that.

---------------
Rick Saunders is a freelance writer who splits his time between endeavors in southern California and the American southwest. He began writing for America's Right in December 2008.

http://www.americasright.com/2008/12/obamas-hawaiian-vacation-bodysurfing.html

OK State Rep Mike Ritze to Persuade Sen. Inhofe to Challenge Obama

UPDATE: Plains Radio Attacked After Streaming Interview?: OK Rep. Mike Ritzke re. Congress, Obama's status

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2153784/posts

OK State Rep Mike Ritze to Persuade Sen. Inhofe to Challenge Obama

Oklahoma State Representative Mike Ritze — the same State Representative who brought forward a bill to have the State validate candidate eligibility — is now seeking to persuade OK Senator James Inhofe to challenge the Electoral College vote certification in Congress.

According to InvestigatingObama:
Related yesterday evening by FReeper, BonRad, below is an email sent by Plains Radio, early Tuesday morning (emphasis by I.O.): …

Last night, Plains Radio made history. We had for the first time one of them to join us. Them? That would be Rep. Mike Ritze of the Oklahoma State house. Dr. Mike will now take our cause to the Senators and Congressman from Oklahoma. He will try and persuade Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma to stand up and challenge Obama Election. …

The email goes on to say that on Friday, 12/26, they are scheduled to interview Obama outistcorrespondent for Pravda’s Web publication (yes, Pravda). The only journalist that I.O. knows of who is reporting about Obama’s ineligibility is Mark S. McGrew and it turns out McGrew was interviewed by Ed Hale of Plains Radio on Monday, 12/22, as well.

Also, Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Obama challengers in Washington state.

I see this as a reasonable path to take. After all, it would be significantly harder to get at least 1 US Senator to challenge the Electoral College vote certification than it would be a Representative (for the reason that Senators are significantly more powerful than any one Representative; they represent an entire State of voters as opposed to merely a district). Also, Sen. Inhofe has done a great job of sticking up for common-sense initiatives for the great State of Oklahoma.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.

State-based initiatives for electoral reform can be found here.

-Phil

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2249