“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jan. 1, 2012) — On January 3, 2012, several members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives will hold a press conference with the primary purpose of informing New Hampshire citizens and registered voters that Barack Hussein Obama may not be eligible to serve as president and therefore should not have his name appear on the 2012 presidential ballot.
The time and place are tentatively set for 10:00 a.m. outside of the Legislative Office Building in Concord.
The website of the New Hampshire House of Representatives provides the following history regarding its beginnings:
Although threatened with reprisals from the British Crown and a bitterly divided constituency, New Hampshire’s leaders set the course for self-government in January 1776. Determined to keep the government close to the people, our forefathers fixed the size of the House of Representatives as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House consisted of 87 members, each one representing 100 families. As time passed and the population increased, the number of Representatives grew, until there were 443. In 1942, a constitutional amendment limited the size of the House to 400 but not less than 375 members. As a result, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the United States.
On November 15, 2011, Atty. Orly Taitz filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission regarding the placing of Obama’s name on the state ballot, citing his use of a social security number not assigned to him as well as having presented two forged birth certificates as proof that he was born in Hawaii. Several state representatives joined the complaint, and citizens from around the country filed challenges as well. A U.S. Army reserve retired colonel has launched a campaign to prevent Obama’s name from being included on the New Hampshire ballot.
The New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission responded to Taitz by holding a hearing on November 18, during which Taitz presented her case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility, focusing on the crimes which she alleged he committed.
Although the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s office has disallowed candidates from running for the presidency due to foreign birthplaces in the recent past, the decision of the Ballot Law Commission was that because Obama completed the application and paid the requisite $1,000 fee, it could not prevent his name from appearing on the 2012 ballot.
Atty. Taitz has since stated that “massive election fraud” is occurring in New Hampshire because it appears that in 2008, boxes of ballots were left out on tables rather than locked in a vault, which Gardner admitted in a video to be a deviation from standard protocol.
Nine members of the New Hampshire House attended the hearing of the Ballot Law Commission, one of whom was Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Coos). Rappaport stated that there were nine representatives present at the Ballot Law Commission hearing and that some or all of them organized the press conference to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.
We first asked him about his reaction to the outcome of the Ballot Law Commission hearing, he responded, “I was extremely disappointed.”
We then asked him about the investigation called for by Attorney General Michael Delaney regarding alleged misconduct on the part of some of the representatives at the Ballot Law Commission hearing. Rappaport’s response was, “There were two investigations. One was by the House Security, run by Randy Joyner, and he reported to the Speaker of the House, and the Attorney General asked the State Police to investigate. Neither one of them contacted me, probably because although I was there, I never said anything. The results of the investigation, as I understand it, were that there were no threats made, and it was basically a non-event.”
Rappaport said that at the time we spoke with him on December 31, a statement to be made at the press conference was in second-draft format. Working on the statement with him are Reps. Lou and Carol Vita and Harry Accornero.
“What we really need to do is emphasize that Barack Obama was not eligible and is not eligible to become president. At the Ballot Law hearing, the Commission and the Assistant Secretary of State said publicly, under oath, on the record, that their authority was only to see that the paperwork was properly filled out and that the $1,000 fee was paid. If you go back a little farther, you find out that they had disqualified a man named Sal Mohamed and another named Abdul Hassan. There are letters, of which we have copies, signed by Karen Ladd, the Assistant Secretary of State. So we applied for a rehearing, which was denied, and we applied to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and last week they denied us a hearing. We can provide complete copies of all of these challenges.”
The Post & Email asked, “Were you surprised that your own state Supreme Court refused to hear your appeal?” and Rappaport responded, “Yes, I was surprised.” He stated that in the letter he received, having been one of the plaintiffs, no reason had been provided.
Rappaort described the purpose of the press conference:
Our biggest concern is that the public becomes aware of what’s going on. We think that the public does not understand, and it is our effort to try to enlighten them. I would cite three things: First of all, there was Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, which gave the definition at the time of the Founders. Second, there was the case Minor v. Happersett from 1875, which established the definition of “natural born Citizen” as one who has two American-citizen parents. We have tons of evidence that Obama’s alleged father was not a citizen. He never held a green card and was never a resident alien. In fact, the truth is he was thrown out of the country.
Rappaport also cited Senate Resolution 511, passed in April 2008, which declared that John McCain was a natural born Citizen by virtue of having two U.S.-citizen parents, but that Obama was not held to the same standard, and he “didn’t know why.”
The Post & Email asked Rappaport, “Do you think that most of your constituents support what you are doing?” and he responded, “Yes. Obama is definitely not very popular in northern New Hampshire.” He stated that Coos County is the largest land mass in the state, has only about 30,000 residents, and was the reason he moved there. New Hampshire has a total of about 1,300,000 residents.
As to his reason for questioning Obama’s eligibility, Rappaport said, “We all swore an oath to two constitutions: the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. I take my oath very seriously, and I feel that I’m required by that oath to do this. I feel very strongly about that. I’ve received a death threat on this go-around and a lot of letters from people who disagree with me. I’ve been called names, but I’ve never gotten a reasoned explanation, not one. I feel as if everyone is claiming ‘This is a settled matter, but I haven’t heard that.'”
We then asked him, “Do you believe the April 27, 2011 purported birth certificate being released to the public is what they’re considering the point which ‘settled’ it?” and he responded, “It didn’t come from him specifically; it came from the ‘White House.’ It is my opinion that not only is it a forgery, but it is a lousy forgery. I printed it from the White House website, and I was able to take it apart using Adobe Illustrator. There were something like 12 different layers. Through a process called ‘flattening,’ which puts all the layers together such that they can’t be separated, the layers should have been flattened, although a document expert could have still determined that it was a forgery.”
Rappaport stated that his background was in electrical engineering and that he “wrote computer software.” He said his skills include laying out a website, although he sometimes “hired other people” to do things beyond his skill level and is not a computer “expert.” Other New Hampshire representatives also have stated that they believe the image is a forgery.
The press conference is expected to last about 30 minutes, and New Hampshire media will be notified. “There’s no guarantee that any major media will cover it, but my biggest hope is that major media is finally waking up. When I was growing up, I read The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Back then, The Times, in particular, was a really good newspaper. What you read on the front page was news, and what you read on the Editorial page was opinion, and the two were not mixed. Today, the news is highly biased. I feel as if The New York Times and The Washington Post report on a story only if it’s something they agree with. If it’s something they don’t agree with, it doesn’t appear anywhere. If it’s something that they mostly agree with, then you’ll find it on page 40.”
Rappaport is 71 and serving his second term in the New Hampshire House. He stated that the organizers of the press conference would have preferred to have more time to plan, but the New Hampshire primary is fast approaching on January 10 and they want to inform the people of what they believe has transpired. The group will also invite the attorney general and all New Hampshire representatives. “My plan is to put out an announcement to all representatives inviting them to support us and to come,” he said.
Final details of the time and place will be released shortly.