ON-LINE EDITORIAL IMPUGNS INVESTIGATION STORY
by John Charlton
(Sept. 19, 2009) — The oldest newspaper in Keene, NH, The Sentinel, has disputed the story in The Post & Email regarding Rappaport’s request for an investigation of election fraud in 2008.
The Sentinel, which claims to be “one of the oldest news organizations in the country”, “founded by 21-year-old John Prentiss in March, 1799”, makes this charge in an on-line editorial, by Shira Schoenberg. It is not clear at this time, why the charge is made in an editorial, if it is based on factual evidence.
However, the Editorial is notable for its inconsistencies.
1) It seems to imply that Rappaport requested an investigation of “President Obama’s birth status.” But in communications with The Post & Email, Rappaport made no such claim. What Rappaport did claim, is that he requested an investigation of election fraud. Schoenberg admits this in her piece, even though she seems to miss the fine point.
2) It then cites an anonymous phone call, regarding a request dealing with “investigating Obama”, to which Gardner replies in the negative. But Rappaport never requested such an all encompassing investigation, nor does the NH Secretary of State Office (SOS) have such authority. Nor did Rappaport claim the NH SOS was undertaking such.
However the editorial does report that Gardner’s office claims to receive inquiries regarding questions, similar to those sent to Gardner’s office by The Post & Email, to which Gardner did not respond.
The dates in this story seem to explain Schoenberg’s take: The Post & Email reported the story on Saturday, Sept. 12th, by Wednesday the 16th, The Post & Email was reporting that Gardner refered the complaint to the NH Attorney General on Tuesday, Sept. 15th. Schoenberg writes on Sept. 16th, when the NH SOS had already determined he could not undertake an investigation; and thus is denying such responses, which responses, according to the Sentinel came in only on Tuesday, Sept. 15th.
However, the import of The Sentinel Source on-line editorial is to set up a situation where the reader is lead to believe that either Rappaport or Gardner lied; either the former to The Post & Email, or the latter to Rappaport or to the Sentinel.
At this time, The Post & Email is awaiting comment by Gardner and Rappaport on this view of their discussion published on-line by the Sentinel.
“those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
‘blood and soil’
Shira is such a bold-faced liar, or woefully bad at research. There has been NO refutation of what Birthers are saying. And there is NO proof that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. He is – and I hope I’m getting this legal terminology right – ipso facto NOT a natural born citizen, by virtue, as stated by “JJ”, of his British birth.
Obama does not have a prayer of winning any case where discovery is granted. That will be the end of his fake presidency, as he cannot possibly have the proof he needs to remain in office.
Those familiar with the cases brought by Cort Wrotnowski (Connecticut) and myself (New Jersey) will recall that we each sued the Secretary of State for failing to perform the ministerial duty assigned to them regarding their responsibility to protect the integrity of the ballots according to state statutes and their Constitutional oath of office. Both of these cases made the unique argument that these two legal duties, state and federal, were fused in the Secretary of State who is the head of elections in each respective state.
Any investigation by Secretary of State Gardner needs to start with an investigation of what he personally did to verify the eligibility of Obama as that was his responsibility to the voters of New Hampshire.
If Secretary of State Gardner was unaware that Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth, he should say that and state for the record what his position on that issue is. Alternatively, he needs to explain how – if he was aware of this fact – he came to the conclusion that Obama was eligible to be on New Hampshire ballots.
The issue of Obama’s British birth needs to be brought to the national table separate from the birth certificate issue. For anybody who was aware of Obama’s British birth admission, Pelosi’s certification could not have settled the issue of whether Obama was eligible since Pelosi and the DNC are not the United States Supreme Court which has never specifically addressed this question.
But the Supreme Court has, in various cases, indicated that the native born son of an alien is not considered to be “natural born” even if he is a US citizen at birth. “Natural born” does not mean a person is a different type of citizen with different rights. Rather, it is a circumstance of birth required by the framers – as a national security measure – to be President and Commander In Chief.