New Hampshire House of Representatives Members to Hold Press Conference on Obama’s Eligibility on January 3

“WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC”

by Sharon Rondeau

New Hampshire produced the first state constitution on January 5, 1776, prior to the American Revolution

(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.

New Hampshire has the largest House of Representatives in the nation.  The Concord Monitor has stated that New Hampshire has “the most localized representation of any state in the country.”

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.

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: National

18 Responses to New Hampshire House of Representatives Members to Hold Press Conference on Obama’s Eligibility on January 3

  1. John Sutherland

    Monday, January 2, 2012 at 6:33 PM

    Also to be remembered, is how the Mexican government views citizenship. I couldn’t find an English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, but Wikipedia offers these comments:

    ============

    According to the 30th article of the Constitution of Mexico, there are two ways in which a person can acquire the Mexican nationality, by birth and by naturalization.

    [1] Nationality by birth:

    The constitution declares that Mexicans by birth — that is, natural born Mexicans — are:

    - those individuals born in Mexican territory regardless of the nationality of their parents;
    - those individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national born in Mexican territory;
    - those individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national by naturalization; and
    - those individuals born in Mexican merchant or Navy ships or Mexican merchant or Army aircrafts

    If this is accurate, then George Romney would have had Mexican citizenship at least, just being born in Mexico.

    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mexican_nationality_law

  2. thinkwell

    Monday, January 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM

    Dear New Hampshire Ballot Commission,

    Words mean something. This was especially true to the Founders who did not willy-nilly place superfluous words into the founding document over which they carefully deliberated for many months. If the Constitution states that our President must be a “natural born Citizen,” it is clear that the Founders meant the requirement to be more restrictive than just simply being born a citizen. Obviously the qualifier “natural” adds a further important something or the Founders would have simply written “born Citizen.”

    If you cross a donkey with a horse, a jackass results. The result is neither a natural born donkey nor a natural born horse. What ensues is an unnatural hybrid that is neither completely donkey nor horse and is sterile and unable to reproduce its own kind (let alone donkey or horse). I submit to the NH ballot commission that, politically, our Founders would have considered Obama to be just such a jackass.

    By examining the writings of the Founders, one can clearly see that the intent of the natural born Citizen requirement was to ensure that our Commander-in-Chief be born with sole, exclusive allegiance to the country that was to entrust him with its command. Obama, by his own admission, was born equally a citizen of Great Britain as recognized by US treaty and law. It is insanity to suggest that the Founders would have ever intended that such a person, born with equal allegiance to their former bloody enemy, be given command of their own military forces.

    When two horses mate it takes no law to ensure that they do not produce a dog or a donkey. It is by nature that only a horse ensues. That, dear ballot commissioners, is the obvious meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born.” To produce a Citizen by nature and nature alone (no law required) requires two parents who themselves are resident Citizens. This was the Founders’ understanding in their use and inclusion of the phrase, natural born Citizen.

    Yes, words truly do mean something.

  3. thinkwell

    Monday, January 2, 2012 at 12:56 PM

    The arrogance of Jane Clemons and disregard for the truth and the rule of law as revealed in your video is dumbfounding. She immediately gets off on the wrong foot by falsely stating that the ballot challenge was on the basis that Obama was not a citizen of the United States. This completely misrepresents the challenge, which was that Obama is not a natural born Citizen (as well as that irrefutable evidence clearly indicates that he has committed multiple acts of felony fraud).

    Assuming she is not as dumb as a brick (which, with obots, is always a possibility), this is one “public servant” who is clearly a premeditated liar and political propagandizer and who should be serving her next term behind bars.

    PS: What software do you use to generate the synthetic speech in your videos and how do you control the voice inflections?

  4. thinkwell

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 11:12 PM

    Hello Commander,

    I have read conflicting information regarding the citizenship status of George Romney. Both the pro and con stories seem plausible, but I haven’t found any confirming documentation either way. Do you have any such information or links to documents that could put this question to rest?

    PS: Thanks for all you have done and are doing to preserve our great nation.

  5. thinkwell

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 10:14 PM

    John – thanks for your interest. I have been poking around on the internet for information about George Romney’s citizenship and found a genealogy web site of the Brown branch of Romney’s family tree: http://www.orsonprattbrown.com/Romney/george-w-romney%201907-1995.html

    The family history claims that Mitt’s grandfather Gaskell never gave up his American citizenship, so that Mitt’s father George was a derivative American citizen from birth even though he was born in Mexico. If this is true, then George would never have had the need to naturalize and Mitt himself would be a fully qualified natural born Citizen. While this story seems completely plausible to me, so does the opposite scenario whereby Mitt’s father was not born with American citizenship and perhaps never bothered naturalizing. Whatever the case, this question should be put to rest by fully exploring the records.

    On the Brown family history page it states:

    During this time Helaman Pratt, son of Parley Parker Pratt, early Mormon church leader and missionary, was the Mormon mission president in Mexico City. Helaman presented a copy of the Book of Mormon to Mexican President Porfirion Diaz and became a frequent guest at Chapultepec Castle. Helaman Pratt and other leaders obtained permission fro Diaz for Miles Park Romney and other Mormon refugees to buy lands and establish colonies in Mexico. Partly with funds advanced by the Church, they purchased large, mostly undevelped tracts in Sonora and Chihuahua known as the Mormon Colonies. [...] As Gaskell and his family had retained their American citizenship, experts on constitutional law believe citizenship would not have been a reason to keep him from running for U.S. President.

    Normally, without special dispensation (as claimed above that was given by Mexican President Diaz) Mexican law would not have permitted the Romney clan to have owned land without having had become exclusive Mexican citizens. Regardless, since George Romney was born in Mexico, he had no business ever running for US President.

    No idea what the true story is here, but Mitt Romney owes it to America to remove all doubts about his own status if he wants to become our next President. Why can’t we only have candidates who are clearly just plain vanilla uncomplicated natural born Citizens?

  6. Texoma

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 9:56 PM

    George Romney was born in Mexico in 1907 to parents who may have become naturalized Mexican citizens. But even if George’s parents had retained their US citizenship in Mexico, George would have been born with dual citizenship.

    Prior to 1952, children born with dual citizenship were required to “elect” US citizenship when they became adults. The US State Department insisted that children born with double nationality had to choose one or the other upon attaining majority — a process known as “election.”

    To date, no one has seen a published naturalization or immigration document showing that George Romney fulfilled his citizenship “election” requirement. If he did not elect to be a US citizen when he became an adult, then he would have remained a Mexican citizen.

    If George Romney was a Mexican citizen at the time of Mitt’s birth in 1947, then Mitt Romney would not be a natural born citizen, since he would not have been born in the US to two US citizen parents. Mitt Romney may not be eligible to be President.

  7. Bob_Porrazzo

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 8:24 PM

    The media in NH like in all of the nation is mostly financed by mega-global companies like Hearst (WMUR-TV), Clear Channel (WGIR Radio) and even so-called independent papers like the state’s largest the NH Union Leader, seems to be compromised as well. NH Public Radio…WELL IN THE TANK FOR SOETORO. This presser if attended by media will be done by a bunch of clueless, indoctrinated j-school lemmings whose goal is to be a lapdog to the global elites and call people who stand for truth conspiracy theorists.

  8. cfkerchner

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM

    George Romney, the former Gov of MI, was a Citizen of the United States, not a natural born Citizen, but a Citizen. There is no question of that. Under U.S. laws, Mexican laws, and international law, George Romney was a citizen of the United States. Mexican law did not grant julis soli citizenship to the mormons born while living there. To gain Mexican Citizenship you had to be born of Mexican parents. His parents never renounced their U.S. Citizenship nor did they lose it. Thus George Romney was born to two Citizen parents in Mexico and was a Citizen of the United States at birth. Again, he was not a natural born Citizen of the United States at birth since he was not born in the USA to two Citizen parents. There was never any question raised as to whether George Romney was a citizen of the USA. He was elected Gov of MI being a citizen of the USA, which is a requirement of that office. Only questions as to whether he was a natural born Citizen and eligible to be President which is one of the reasons he withdrew his candidacy for President. And thus … since Mitt was born in the USA to a citizen father and mother he is a natural born Citizen of the United States.

  9. cfkerchner

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 5:10 PM

    Here is a new educational flier/handout about the legal and constitutional term of art “natural born Citizen of the United States. Feel free to download it and hand it out at Tea Party or other events to help educate folks:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76900058/Handout-Flier-Obama-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-with-Venn-Diagram-Support-Art2SuperPAC

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org

  10. John Sutherland

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 4:09 PM

    thinkwell – good comments all. We are in agreement. Romney’s status should become part of the public conversation since we know that no one in government will background check the candidates.

  11. A pen

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 3:49 PM

    Will the press conference itself be made available via live broadcast or taped for replay? This event could finally focus the debate on the purposeful deception being made by the government that the constitution is theirs to uphold and unenforceable by any civilian. S511 only means the parties who signed it understood they were well aware of the law that they violated. The elitist attitude toward the process of amending the law is well inked in the senate judiciary hearing of Oct 5 2004. All who serve this nation have a duty to perform due diligence before using the powers entrusted. That duty has been replaced by laziness, contempt and subversion through fabrications so dishonest that the effort put into them require a command of the language, an understanding of criminal law and a willingness to use all them to fool the average citizen. I just described the CRS.

  12. BobSR

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM

    If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee he will never bring up the subject of natural born citizen. The reason he won’t bring it up is because of Obama. Both the Dems and Repubs would like nothing better than to put this issue to rest, having changed the Constitution by ignoring it, by running still another Constitutionally ineligible candidate.

    In the MSM, which for the last couple of years now has included Fox News, there will not be a peep about Romney’s eligibility because to do so would force a discussion of the ineligibility of Obama.

  13. KenyanBornObama

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 3:02 PM

    I’ve got Ballot Law Commissioner, Jane Clemons, ON TAPE lying! During the interview, Jane claims her job is to make sure the candidate was born here. Now why didn’t she say that at Orly’s hearing? In this video, Jane also degrades the Birthers and calls us conspiracy theorists and with this bias, I don’t see how it’s possible for her to remain on the ballot law commission with this partiality.

    Listen to this woman lie through her teeth:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTKHG2Miw-A

  14. thinkwell

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM

    Mr. Sutherland, your comment about Mitt Romney is spot on. (When 90+ percent of our citizenry is natural born, why can’t we come up with 100 percent of our presidential candidates from such a large group? What is wrong with this country?)

    The historical records indicate that Romney’s grandfather became a Mexican citizen and very likely completely lost his American citizenship (both due to Mexican law and the spate of U.S. laws at the time which removed the sovereignty of Mormons who refused to give up polygamy). Therefore George Romney (Mitt’s father), who was born in Mexico to exclusively Mexican citizens was not even a dual citizen of the USA when he was born.

    As part of their mission, most of the Mormon Mexican community became fluent in the local language and culture, yet they continued to keep strong ties to their American roots. It is entirely plausible that Mitt’s father could have returned to America “under the radar” so-to-speak, and never officially naturalized.

    Personally, I believe it is more likely that George Romney was inclined to follow the law and did naturalize promptly upon returning to the land of his roots, but why should we have to speculate about a matter that should so easily be settled by examining the legal records of the time?

    If Mitt Romney loves his country and truly supports the Constitution and the various oaths he has solemnly taken to uphold it, then he should hold a very public press conference to settle the question of whether or not his father was an American citizen at the time his own (Mitt’s) birth. This should be very easy to prove one way or the other via government naturalization records.

    It is most likely that Mitt Romney actually is a legitimate natural born Citizen, but it is also entirely plausible that he is not. By asking the American people to elect him their commander-in-chief, candidate Romney has taken on the moral (if not legal) obligation to the sovereign Citizens of this nation to provide proof that he meets the minimum qualifications demanded by our Constitution. This nation cannot survive yet another usurper fraud as its president.

  15. Rosemary

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 1:25 PM

    Yes John, You are absolutely correct. I googled Romney’s father, George Wilken Romney and found he was born in Chichucha, mexico 1907. I have been saying this for months and have looked for information on when George Wilken became a US Citizen. I can not find anything on this. they want to do it again to us which I believe the establishment is puishing Romney as the nominee. As will McCain, the birth certificate can never come up if Romney is the nominee!

  16. old1

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM

    They have the idea of the truth! Will any MSM news organization cover this taboo subject – or – will they treat it like they treat Ron Paul’s lead in the polls, by just ignoring it.
    It is really simple enough for any 5th grader; If your daddy was a Kenyan Brit, for the office of POTUS you’ll never be fit.
    Article 2., Section 1., paragraph 5., of our Great Constitution
    The British Nationality Act of 1948
    John Jay’s letter to George Washington
    Vattel’s Law of Nations
    Senator Obama’s father was a Kenyan Brit which never tried to become an American, and was deported before he could complete his college work. Therefore his son was born a British Subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948. No dual citizen can ever be considered a Natural born American Citizen as is required under A2., S1., p5., to hold the office of President. The founding fathers were, for the most part, all British trained Lawyers and knew Vattel well. Natural born was jus sanguinis jus soli or born of Blood and Soil. The Blood of both parents Citizens at one’s birth and that birth on the Soil of the Country in question. Senator Obama can never fulfill this Natural Born requirement. In all fairness neither can John McCain (who was not born on American soil) and Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio (who both had non-American citizen parents at the time of their birth). Article 2., Section 1., paragraph 5., has never been changed by Constitutional Amendment and no Judge, Jury, Senator, Congressman, Bill or Law can Amend the language written in our Constitution. To change the Natural Born requirement would take a Constitutional Amendment which has never taken place. The man sleeping in our White House is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of POTUS. That is a fact whether you like it or not. A very few minutes of research will prove the above facts. What could possibly be more important than the eligibility of the person in the position of leader of the Free World?

  17. John Sutherland

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM

    This press conference on Tuesday is, of course, great news, and I hope that it gets a lot of attention, although I expect it will get ignored and shunned by the hidden government controlled news media.

    As an aside, one point that was not made clearly in this article was that a major political effort by the two parties in 2008 was to have neither major candidate be a ‘natural born citizen’ and the plan happened as envisioned by the hidden elites.

    John McCain, regardless of the corrupt efforts by McCaskill, Leahy, Obama, Coburn, Clinton, and Webb at defining him as a natural born citizen, is not a natural born citizen. McCain was born in the country of Panama, not on U.S. soil, and the whole deal with S.R. 511 was just another huge hoax perpetrated on the American people. You can’t legislate natural born citizenship – a person is either natural born, or he is not.

    A copy of John McCain’s Panamanian birth certificate is found here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate

    There is so much manipulation and corruption in this federal government that it needs to be either fixed, forcing all of the miscreants out of government (and hopefully into jail), or it needs to be shut down and a restart initiated by the states. There is no in between position.

    BTW, the next major issue with natural born citizenship may be with Mitt Romney (the current big government favorite for GOP candidate) whose father was born in Mexico, and it is not clear whether George Romney ever naturalized. If Mitt’s father didn’t naturalize before Mitt was born, Mitt is another person who is not eligible to become POTUS, because he would not be a natural born citizen.

    After seeing all of these continual attacks on American sovereignty by our domestic and foreign enemies, I hope the American people wake up enough to retake control of their own government, because it should be clear to everyone by now that governments are not self regulating, and once bad, they stay bad.

  18. Rosemary

    Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 11:25 AM

    Thank you. This is great news to start the New Year. I myself was one who sent a complaint form to NH and plan to do so in CT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>