HI Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s HI Birth

WON’T DEFEND FUKINO’S STATEMENT THAT HE IS “NATURAL-BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN”

by John Charlton

Mark J. Bennett, HI Attorney General

(Feb. 2, 2010) — While political momentum is building within the Democratic Party from coast to coast to make the issue of Obama’s claims to be born in Hawaii a litmus test for its political opponents in the 2010 general elections for Congress, a key component in such a strategy has been undermined by the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office.

In correspondence with The Post & Email, Jill T. Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, has made it clear that her office will not corroborate or back in any way the July 27, 2009 Statement of Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a “natural-born American citizen.”

The stunning admission was made in an email sent to the Editor of this paper yesterday evening.

The implications of this denial are catastrophic for the Democratic strategy.

The Hawaii Attorney General’s office has the duty to prosecute the laws of the State.  Mark J. Bennett, the current Attorney General, was appointed to the office by Governor Lingle on Jan. 3, 2003. He is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Honolulu, and a graduate of Cornell’s Law School.  Bennett is the first Republican to hold the office in 40 years.

According to published reports, Dr. Fukino has admitted that her July 27th statement received the verbal approval of the HI Attorney General, who “o.k.’d it.”

In an attempt to corroborate the contents of Dr. Fukino’s statement and understand better the value of that testimony, I put the following two questions to Nagamine, as a member of the press.

I am seeking some information in response to 2 questions I have.  Please understand that your response(s) or non-response will be quoted by our paper.

Q. 1: Does the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have any statutory duty or authority to define the citizenship status of anyone whose vital record(s) are kept by that department?

Q.2: According to the legal references employed by your office, what is the defition of a “natural-born citizen” of the United States of America?

I put my question to the Deputy Attorney General to avoid putting the Attorney General in a situation of a conflict of interest, if he in fact, did, as Dr. Fukino claims, advise her regarding her July statement.

Nagamine, in response, asserted that any answer to such questions given by her office would represent a conflict of interest for her office.  And that is an explicit admission that Dr. Fukino had no statutory authority nor duty to make such a statement, and that the Attorney General’s office will not stand behind Fukino’s claim that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen.” It is such, because if Fukino’s declaration had legal weight of any kind, surely a response to my questions would have corroborated that without such a conflict-of-interest scenario.  You only have a conflict if the Fukino claim would not be supported by a Nagamine response.

In December, the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii issued its own dossier of excuses as to why they are also refusing to confirm, by documentation, the July Statement to Dr. Fukino.

Ironically, and quite oblivious to these developments, the Democratic Party in Tennessee issued a missive berating that state’s Republican Lt. Governor, Ron Ramsey, who yesterday publicly denied that he was certain of Obama’s birth-story claims:

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey today questioned the president’s citizenship, offering further proof that the Republican leadership in the General Assembly is out of touch with real Tennesseans.
“I don’t know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or not,” Ramsey reportedly told the Nashville Republican’s First Tuesday Club after it was suggested that no one running for president be put on a Tennessee ballot unless proof of natural born citizenship is provided.
Mr. Ramsey would rather pander to a far-right wing group of conspiracy theorists than govern in a pragmatic approach that most Tennesseans expect from their political leaders.

Quite irrationally, the Democratic Party is now asserting an undocumented claim  as political “truth” and doubt concerning the veracity of such an unsupported claim as a “conspiracy theory,” which indeed is more evidence of the Party’s withdrawal from a Main Street notion of reality.

The Post & Email recently published a report explaining why the electronic image promoted by the Obama campaign of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth is in fact a crude forgery and has been recognized as such for nearly two years.

In October, the Hawaii Attorney General’s office also refused to take a public stand on what the term “natural born citizen” means, raising further doubt about the value of any counsel offered by the Attorney General to the Fukino statement.

The Post & Email notes, furthermore, that the term “natural-born” is more commonly the medical term for a natural birth; whereas “natural born” is the constitutional term meaning born on U.S. Soil of two U.S. citizen parents.

See the tags at the end of this article for more information about issues covered in this report.

37 Responses to "HI Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s HI Birth"

  1. RoBoTech   Sunday, February 14, 2010 at 2:43 PM

    Although I agre that children born on a US military base to TWO American Citizens is an NBC, McCain was NOT born on the base! He was born at a Panama Hospital. Does this make a difference as the Hospital was not American Controlled Soil? Does the fact that said base had NO Hospiltal make a difference? I don’t know, but to say he was born on a Military Base is incorrect.

    ————————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: It is inaccurate to say that one born of 2 us citizens on a military bases is a natural born citizen. The base would have to be U.S. Territory, or, if it is on lease soil of a foreign country or in a stateless area, the child born would have to be born of 2 u.s. citizens, one of whom was in military service of the country. However, in the latter case, the birth does not have to be on a base. The notion of a natural born citizen born of a man or woman in military service of one’s nation, is a concept Vattel drew from the common opinion/tradition of natural and international law, in which those participating in military forces of a country, have a special relationship of personal inclusion in the jurisdition of that government, such that all their children born, are considered born in that country, even if actually born outside of the territory of that country.

    For this reason, it does not matter where McCain was born, it matters only that his parents were U.S. citizens and that his father was on active duty. Which is why SR 511 confines itself with 2 citizen parents as a condition for being NBC for children of military personnel.

    Yet it must be emphasized that this application of Vattel to the NBC question in U.S. Constitutional law, has never been made by the U.S. Supreme Court; nor any court for that matter, as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong).

  2. Charlene   Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 1:17 PM

    I know somethin smells about bo. I know he has something he is hiding or pretending to hide. What creates chaos in my head is ” WHY” why choose this person who they have to cover for? Why not choose someone who at least LOOKS legit? Why Muslim backround? Why commie parents and associates? etc etc etc. Would it not have been as easy to choose a REAL black person, charismatic, etc? Why a person with so many questions surronding him?
    Don’t get me wrong, I have been following this for over 2 yrs and truely believe something is wrong here. I just can’t understand the reasoning for choosing him!
    This is really bothering me!!!!!

  3. Mitch Ballard   Sunday, February 7, 2010 at 11:51 AM

    Good Job Big Boo,
    This is the best, most concise explination I have ever heard and should be run in every newspaper and blog in this country. Well done. I am forwarding this to everybody I know.
    Welcome to the revolution…and I quote:
    “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it…it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” July 4, 1776

  4. ngw   Sunday, February 7, 2010 at 11:38 AM

    dont forget mao ornament on obama’s whitehouse christmas tree. George Soros, Van jones a communist, a czar who loved mao, but was let go. Ayers, The tides foundation, etc.useful idiots are the ones that like socialism.

  5. ngw   Sunday, February 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM

    I think that to get a passport you have to show your real birth certificate it should be on record

  6. TexomaEd   Sunday, February 7, 2010 at 12:44 AM

    Your point about the armed forces being the formal presence of a nation at a locale is good, but only in the sense if that locale was conquered by the armed forces. The locale of where McCain was born was not conquered by the US military and furthermore it was a part of Panama proper. And because it was Panamanian soil, Panama claimed him to be a Panamanian citizen at birth. And because of the parents, the US claimed McCain to be a US citizen at birth.

    And so here we have two nations (the US and Panama) each with a claim of citizenship on McCain at birth. Unlike a natural born citizen, whose citizenship at birth is 100% US, McCain’s citizenship at birth was split between two countries.

    And Panama’s claim to McCain’s citizenship is no different than if the reverse situation had occurred. Imagine that we have a Canadian soldier stationed across the North Dakota border in Canada with a Canadian wife who is pregnant. Imagine they are out for a drive near the border and she goes into labor and the nearest hospital is across the border in the US. So they cross the border and she gives birth to a child in this US hospital. That child is therefore a US citizen at birth, despite being taken back to Canada a few days later, where his parents raise him as a Canadian citizen. But that child will always have had the status of being a dual citizen at birth.

    —————————

    Mr. Charlton replies: TexomaEd, whether the army is present for peaceful purposes or for beligerent ones, the principle remains the same, that where the military forces are there the jurisdiction of that country is. That is where they are as an army, not a multinational force. The Panama Canal Zone was an exclusive American Zone, where our Military exercised the full Jurisdiction of the American Government, even if the occasion of their being their and the nature of that occupation was a friendly determined by treaty. But the mere fact that a treaty has to specify that relationship, is premised upon the principle that otherwise, the presence of US Military as a US Miliary unit is the exercise of full jurisdiction.

    The example you use about Canada is not similar at all: the wife is not a US. citizen; and the boundary is a international boundary.

    For McCain the Panamal Canal Zone is not an international boundary, its a treaty-boundary; the treaty allows U.S. Military units in the zone in the service of full American Jurisdiction by postive law, yet with limited effects. Mc Cain was born of a father in service of his country. The fact that he went some miles outside of military camp does not change that. He lived off base with the consent of his military superiors.

    His father was not a civilian, but on active duty; therefore the child had a special relationship to U.S. jurisdiction that no child born of civilians has or could ever have.

    I think anyone who understands what the Miltary is, accepts that; if you merely want to dispute this, fine, but I think this thread is sufficient for the above article’s comment section, as is.

  7. TexomaEd   Saturday, February 6, 2010 at 10:49 PM

    I think I know why Vattel considers these children born in the country, but does not call them natural born citizens. In Vattel’s time, if your nation’s army was in a foreign country, it was most likely because they were fighting over territory. The sovereignty of this territory was in a state of flux and claimed by two nations who each would have a claim on children born in that territory, regardless of who the parents were. This dual claim would make such children not natural born citizens, for the citizenship of a natural born citizen is one that is self-evident to all nations, including the ones you are at war with.

    The situation in the Panama Canal Zone was very different. Our military was never at war with Panama and the territory they occupied was not conquered (although Colombia might dispute that!). The US paid rent to the Republic of Panama for all the land comprising the Canal Zone, including that of the military bases. Panama had always claimed sovereignty over the Canal Zone.

    But the question of Panama’s sovereignty of the territory of the Canal Zone is really moot with regard to McCain. He was born in Colon, Panama which is Panamanian soil. Panamanian law states that all persons born on its soil are Panamanian citizens at birth, McCain was a Panamanian citizen at birth and also a US citizen because of his parents. Like Obama, McCain was a dual citizen at birth and not a natural born citizen.

    —————————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: Here I wil have to beg to differ. Vattel says that children born to soliders on duty are born in the country, because according to international law and natural naw, where a nation’s army is, that nation excercises jurisdiction in the highest manner, since the armed forces of the nation are the formal presence of that entire nation in that locale. So there is no question at all of being a dual citizen. In fact, no nation on earth, as a far as I have read, recognizes as citizens those born in the service of a foreign army on its soil. Its contrary to principle and to sovereignty.

    As for the special contract or alliance between the USA and Panama, that does not change natural law or international law. It only changes the positive effects of the US Military presence in Panama. And since that treaty did not say that those born in US military service while stationed in the Canal Zone, whether born in or out of it, would not be natural born citizenz, I think Vattel’s princples hold.

    In question of natural law, even positive legal agreements are not final: because a natural born citizen cannot be deprived of this right by any postitive law, since the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God trump all treaties and Congressional acts.

    For that reason I believe that McCain has good grounds to claim NBC status, and that the Supreme Court would probably uphold such a claim. The same principles result in Obama being recognized never to have been a NBC of the USA.

    I admit that for a long time I believed McCain was not a NBC. But upon reading Vattel, I have seen that I was wrong on that.

  8. yo   Saturday, February 6, 2010 at 11:34 AM

    And one other point to amend my previous comment.

    If we go after Obama on a subject of dual citizenship alone, and won, it would almost certainly be by a 5-4 decision somewhere, and the media and the losers would attempt to turn it all into a “they stole it” and the rioters would all be portrayed as the victims. (as in, “what else could they do?”) Now I’m not saying that we should avoid the issue because of the yelling, screaming, rioting that would ensue, I would say go ahead and riot and give the police their riot gear. I’m just saying that this country is full of people, and judges, who would vote against sound legal theory for exactly that reason. So, it’s another reason I don’t think we’ll get anywhere with it.

    On the other hand, when and if we get our hands on his Real birth certificate, and it shows just what type of shenanigans he’s played, not only will the living constitution types have nowhere to hide, but all of the “they stole it” people and their media lackeys will look like utter fools trying to pull that crap.

  9. TexomaEd   Saturday, February 6, 2010 at 1:22 AM

    That is not what Vattel said. He said “… children born out of country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country, …” He did not state that these children were natural born citizens.

    ————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: And if the child has 2 citizen parents, and is reputed born in the country, since he was born in the arms of the state…then he meets the criteria for a Natural Born Citizen….for more on this ask Mario Apuzzo, who I believe was the first one to find this in Vattel.

  10. kailuagirl   Friday, February 5, 2010 at 11:03 PM

    Dear John, are you aware of the following:
    http://biggovernment.com/fgaffney/2010/02/05/federal-court-no-the-government-may-not-prevent-further-discovery-of-the-takeover-of-aig/

    Status update FYI…we are getting close on that Drudge initiative…hope to be coming through soon.

    Great job with the H-DAG! I wonder, what does Gov Linda will have to say about this?

    ———————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: This case is very promising; it might bring about grounds for Obama’s impeachment, after the 2010 elections. I say “impeachment” not because I believe he can be, but because perhaps that’s all the manliness Congress will have.

  11. garyrose   Friday, February 5, 2010 at 9:11 PM

    AMEN AMEN THE MYSTERYMAN HAS TO EXPOSED AND PROSECUTED? TO THE FULLEST AND ALL PARTNERS IN CRIME.ITS PAST DAY ONE WAY PAST TIME AND IF THERES 1 COURT AND 1 HONEST NOT BOUGHT IN AMERICA ?? LETS GET THIS NIGHTMARE OVER WITH NOW? MAKE AMERICA AMERICAN AGAIN>>>>>>

  12. 12th Generation AMERICAN   Friday, February 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM

    What ever happened to this proposal back in August 2009 reported in WND?

    “Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has confirmed plans to introduce legislation through which the state’s lawmakers would force the public disclosure of all President Obama’s birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health, including President Obama’s long-form original birth certificate. “

  13. marilyn   Friday, February 5, 2010 at 12:04 AM

    It has also been reported that the President has more than one SSAN. If there is a real birth certificate, what is the name on it? Remember, there was at least one name change.

  14. TexomaEd   Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 10:41 PM

    Reply to Mike: If he was born in Colon (a city in Panama) instead of the Canal Zone, then that further makes my point (thanks). I had heard of this, and I have even seen what sure looks like a birth certificate showing McCain being born in Colon. But it does not really matter. He was not born within the 50 states or DC. Panama considers all those born in the Canal Zone to be Panamanian citizens at birth — and this represents a legitimate foreign claim (in addition to that of the US) upon McCain’s citizenship at birth.

  15. James Koslow   Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 2:08 PM

    The Constitution in Article I Section 8 duty #9 embeds ” To Define and punish …….Offenses against the Law of Nations”. It is from the Law of Nations that the definition of a natural born citizen is given. I could rationalize that by the fact that McCain’s parents were both of the USA in service to their Country that one could ‘define’ their presence to satisfy the spirit of a natural born citizen, Whether or not those passing the resolution so thought, I doubt. One thing I do believe is that there was enough discussion to stop BHO from piggy-backing on the resolution as much as he might have intended.

    ————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: As a point of fact, Emmerich de Vattle, in his treatise, “The Law of Nations,” states that a child born of a soldier abroad in the service of his country, is a natural born citizen of his country. On that basis, McCain would be a natural born citizen; however, constitutionally, it would have probably taken a Supreme Court ruling for McCain to have succesffuly defended a challenge against his claim to be such, if he made such a claim; that is, without the Senate Resolution, which was a political conspiracy right out in the open.

  16. yo   Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 11:08 AM

    As a strict constructionist myself, I have no problem with your conclusion. The problem is that we live in a country where there are also living, breathing, evolving constitution types. And they get their way on many issues of jurisprudence. My understanding is that even authoritative law dictionaries define nbc as only having to do with where one is born. So, we should make our case, and make it strongly regarding founders intent on the definition of nbc. But, we may not win it because the founders intent does not always win, unfortunately.

    Which brings us to the birth certificate. Obama’s paid lawyers two million dollars to keep the long form a secret. The long form is the only item that can prove definitively that he was born on US soil. Inquiring minds should want to know why he is hiding it. And, if we are finally able to get a look at it, and it does not prove he was born in the US, with supporting documentation, the living constitution people have nowhere to hide.

    That’s my take, anyway, for whatever it’s worth.

  17. Mike   Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 8:19 AM

    I almost hate to bring this up but for clarity it should be pointed that McCain’s birth records (that are fully released and available) show he was born in the Colon Hospital. This is not on a US base and was not and is not ever us US jurisdiction. He clearly did meet the jus soli requirement in any way.

    I think this is why the Republicans who were around for both of McCains presidential runs avoid the issue and even distorted the real facts at times. Anyone around during those runs simply does not want to talk about the issue as it relates to either man.

  18. Pingback: The Constitution meets Politics in Tennessee « Socialism is not the Answer

  19. Pingback: HI Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s HI Birth « ~ THE GUNNY "G" BLOGS ONLINE ~ NEWS, VIEWS, BS, and…The BIZARRE!

  20. The Big Boo   Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 5:20 AM

    At issue for McCain is that he was not born on U.S. soil, the military base, or land leased to the U.S. He was born in the Colon municipal hospital, then called the submarine hospital I believe, which is in Panamanian territory.

    Because his location of birth is in question, the Senate passed a resolution saying he was qualified for President. Such resolutions have no force of law.

    The McCain issue is moot as he is no longer a candidate for President. As for Obama, he misses the first mark — two citizen parents — everyone agrees to that, including the President.

    Like so many things he has done, he flaunts it in your face. Our traitors (almost every single Republican office holder, all U.S. General Officers, All Democrats) will not uphold their pledge to defend the Constituion. They don’t have the guts and would rather not be criticized by the MSM, so they choose treason.

    When asked about whether Obama is a citizen the ONLY reply that should be given is, “Obama is not a natural born citizen because a natural born citizen must be the offspring of two US citizens and his father was not a U.S citizen. Therefore, just as if he was under the age of 35, he cannot and is not eligible to be President. It is a violation of the Constitution that he is.

    Unfortunately, Republicans are too stupid to stick to the script and simply repeat the script when baited by the MSM to address birth location, birth certificate, citizenship etc. etc. Those are purposeful distractions to avoid the central issue. Republicans fall for the trap every time. Such as they are, they serve as “useful idiots” for the current marxist regime.

  21. Bruce Town   Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 4:20 AM

    McCain was duped into running, Without McCain, Obama/Soetoro or who ever he is couldn’t have run. Remember the non binding resolution, it was not about McCain, it was about getting Obama elected! We where all duped! McCain should have seen this coming.

  22. TexomaEd   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 10:36 PM

    McCain is a patriot, but he is not a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is a person who attains his citizenship via the laws of nature and not of man. If you are born in the US (one of the 50 states or DC) and your parents are both US citizens at the time of your birth, then you do not need any human law (not even the 14th amendment) to say that you are a US citizen. You are obviously and “naturally” a US citizen — you are a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is born with no foreign claims of citizenship and allegiance.

    If you need a human law to establish your citizenship, then you cannot be a natural born citizen. McCain was a US citizen at birth via a federal statute. Furthermore, the territory where he was born was under US jurisdiction by virtue of a treaty and a lease (more human laws). Finally, the Panamanian constitution declares all persons born in the Canal Zone to be Panamanian citizens at birth. Like Obama, McCain was a dual citizen at birth.

  23. plain jane   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 9:25 PM

    If I were a politician, I would be making no assumptions at this point. This administration has every second planned for the next four years. Don’t think they haven’t thought out all the possibilities. These guys are not fooling around. They have an agenda. McCain should be ashamed of himself. The blame for all of this falls on him and the issue is still for him to resolve. Man up McCain. Hey that’s catchy…what about a bumper sticker????

  24. IceTrey   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 8:57 PM

    I wouldn’t think you are bound by any clause they have included in a reply to an email. What if I emailed you that I just murdered someone and added a clause saying you couldn’t post that mail or tell anyone. Ridiculous.

    ——————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: Tell it to Nagamine, or call the White House!

  25. Pingback: The End of Obama « drkatesview

  26. Lea   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 6:53 PM

    I wish to comment on what Ronald said. I say the following because several members of my family are “military” and some have been born while they were “out of country” but on U.S. Military bases. As I understand it, “natural born” means BOTH PARENTS ARE U.S. CITIZENS. That is what I understand.

    McCain certainly is a “natural born” citizen because a. both parents were American citizens and b. He was born on what is considered U.S. controlled territory – a military base.

    To suggest that he isn’t “natural born” because he was born to a military family while on base out of country is not correct. How many U.S. families would have foreigners as children if that were the case?

    People forget that the 14th Amendment was instituted after the Civil War and does not apply to the requirements to serve as President. The “natural born” clause is found elsewhere in the Constitution.

    I agree that Obama cannot be a “natural born” citizen. Both of his parents were not U.S. Citizens. Bobby Jindal can never be president, nor can the CA Gov because a. Arnold WAS born in another country and held foreign citizenship until he was naturalized and b. Jindal (I believe) was born here but his parents were not.

    In either case, Obama sealing all of his records is highly unusual and causes immediately suspicion. No other president (that I am aware of) has done this.

    May the truth come out.

  27. markd   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM

    eventually obama will be outed.
    thanks for the truth in reporting.

  28. jtx   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 2:03 PM

    Actually, Obama’s whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction.

    If you’d like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly, contain a wealth of factual data – more than we’ve seen from Obama.

    In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like “Our Boy” and really strikes a chord.

    Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC – but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX5DzZHkIU Three Little Words

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGG8tIJNMY Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

  29. throwshoesatobama   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 1:32 PM

    I don’t understand. You told them you were from the press. Then they send you an email telling you that it can’t be reprinted. Are they not a governmental agency using government computers on the governments dime? I see no reason for you to respect their wish. In another post you state that people have to stand up for principals. Time to put up or shut up!

    ——————

    Mr. Charlton replies: Anyone who talks to the press has the right to restrict the usage of the actual words he/she says…that’s an established principle, as their words belong to them. Sometimes they ask to comment off the record; sometimes on the record; Nagamine wanted to respond, but not be quote…I therefore paraphrased….I think it is obvious why she did not want to be quoted.

    If you don’t like that, then call her office and demand a quotable response. Bennet was the former Assitant US AG in Hawaii, I sure hope his office knows what the statutory duties of HI officials are, and what a NBC is….and if his office refuses to admit what they know about State and Constitutional Law, what are they receiving tax payers’ money for? To go to the beach and surf?

  30. Carl Swensson   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

    We’ll see just how much of our government has been taken from us when Dr. Orly Taitz’s Quo Warronto is dealt with by Chief Justice Royce Lamberth at the D.C. District Court. He refused to act on our Citizen Grand Jury Presentments even though he acknowledged their Constitutional validity and she is hammering the Article II Section I Claus V aspect.
    In the mean time, get involved with your local precinct Rep. Party and you’ll be surprised to find how easy it is to litteraly take it over and return it to Constitutional Conservatism,
    http://www.riseupforamerica.com

  31. Carl Swensson   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM

    All the politicians I’ve talked with tell me the same thing…
    We’ll have to vote him out????? To which I reply, He has never been there legally to begin with.
    Sure wish I could find one, count em, one, with the spine enough to acknowledge and pursue the dual citizenship issue…

  32. Pingback: Hawaii Attorney General’s Office Refuses to Corroborate Obama’s Birth Certificate « Reboot The Republic

  33. Ronald Whaley   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 9:04 AM

    Well we all know that if his father was from Kenya he can not be a “Natural Born Citizen” therefore he can not hold the office of the President of the United States. But we will not see anyone in Congress or the Senate demand his removal from office because they are as guilty as he for him being there and it is a play on power which we all know the corrupt Congress and Senate want more of. And believe me the Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats with this. McCain was/is not a “Natural Born Citizen” even though they said he was. He was NOT born on American soil therefore he can NOT hold this office. Our Government has gone mad with power and we will NOT see this problem solved anytime soon.

    ———————

    Mr. Charlton replies: Regarding your last statement, I’d have to say that is not absolutely certain: yes, for sure, American has been brainwashed by the liberals and progressives so much that few individuals are individuals of honor, principle or the kind of basic honesty which believes in ideals and 1+1=2 come hell or high water.

    It takes such men and women and voters to put such men into Congress. Vote them all out, I say! But make sure you don’t vote the same kind of broad minded power-hungry jerks that are already there, not only in the Congress, but in the White House, the Administration, and the Supreme Court.

  34. Pingback: HAWAII Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s HAWAII Birth « Ramparts 360

  35. James   Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 8:24 AM

    John,
    Can you post the email response from the Attorney General’s Office.

    —————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: No, I cannot, as it has a clause restricting quotation. Call them yourselves and ask, or write them. Their supposed to be public servants.

    Or, for those Obama supporters who don’t like this report: you can just write Obama and ask for a copy of his original birth certificate. After all, since he is robbing you and your children and grandchildren of trillions of dollars for his friends, you can surely trust him in whatever he tells you. No?

  36. Benaiah   Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 11:20 PM

    For: We the People
    From: The Word of Truth

    John 10:1-2, 10
    I tell you the truth, the man [USURPER] who does not enter the sheep pen [OFFICE OF PRESIDENT] by the gate [ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION], but climbs in by some other way [FRAUD], is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate [ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION] is the shepherd of his sheep [WE THE PEOPLE]. The thief [USURPER] comes only to steal and kill and destroy [THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES]…

    Matthew 7:15
    Watch out for false prophets [USURPERS]. They come to you in sheep’s clothing [ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA], but inwardly they are ferocious wolves [WHO COME ONLY TO STEAL AND KILL AND DESTROY].

  37. syc1959   Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 10:42 PM

    Great work. They can only cover so far for the illegal undocumented alien.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.