Obama eligibility: new Arizona action
An Arizona official asked Hawaii to verify the Obama’s birth certificate. Obama eligibility activists in Arizona and New Jersey took heart.
Arizona raises Obama eligibility stakes
Yesterday evening, Jerome R. Corsi at WND reported the latest Obama eligibility action. Ken Bennett, Secretary of State for Arizona, sent a letter to several members of the Surprise, AZ Tea Party. This same group first sent the petition to Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County to investigate Barack Obama’s White House birth certificate document. More recently, they wrote Mr. Bennett to ask him not to list Barack Obama on the election ballot this fall.
Bennett, writing back, told the Tea Party people that he had asked the State of Hawaii to verify the information on the birth certificate. He noted that Hawaii’s own laws force it to yield such information to officials in other States who ask for it in the course of their work.
He carefully clarified that Sheriff Arpaio has shown only that he had “probable cause” to suspect forgery in the case of the Internet birth certificate image. He suggested that Sheriff Arpaio should ask the Maricopa County attorney to prosecute.
Then Bennett said this:
Whether or not that happens, if Hawaii can’t or won’t provide verification of the president’s birth certificate, I will not put his name on the ballot.
Obama eligibility activists react
Brian Reilly, the Arizona activist who first suggested petitioning Sheriff Joe Arpaio to investigate, cheered the letter. Reilly and others had written Bennett earlier, saying that having anyone on the ballot who could not serve if elected would “destroy the integrity of the entire electoral process.”
In my mind, no way can (Hawaii) certify or confirm what that is. We actually need to see the hard copy.
Nick Purpura and Ted Moran, both of New Jersey, have their own Obama eligibility case on appeal. Purpura, when he heard the news, cheered loudly as well.
Anyone who thinks that the Tea Party is dead in this country should take note! We are alive, and well, and not going away. We are originalists, we want our Constitution back, and we’re going to fight for it.
He also spoke to what this means for the case that he and fellow activist Ted Moran (Toms River) filed with the New Jersey Division of Elections.
This is a fantastic development, particularly since we have a case on appeal. Thank God we finally have a Secretary of State with the courage to ask the right questions! I think that the Appellate Division should take special judicial notice that now a State official has asked the State of Hawaii to verify the birth certificate. The court should send a letter like [Bennett]’s to the State of Hawaii, asking them to verify. Because we have no evidence!
Purpura also said that the New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division, “to preserve the integrity of the court,” should reconsider its order for a telephonic oral argument in the case of Purpura and Moran v. Obama.
This case demands an open oral argument, before the public.
The Appellate Division agreed to hear Purpura and Moran, and to accelerate their appeal. Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin ruled on April 10 that Obama need not show eligibility to be on a primary ballot. He also ruled that, presuming that he was born in Hawaii as he claims, he is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution of the United States. Purpura and Moran dispute both findings.
Purpura pointed out that some of the information on the White House birth certificate document is anachronistic. It lists the race of his father, Barack H. Obama Senior, as “African-American.” The common term in 1961 was “Negro.” It also lists Obama Senior’s birthplace as “Kenya, East Africa.” In fact, “Kenya” and “East Africa” are two names for the same region. The British renamed “British East Africa” as the Protectorate of Kenya in 1920.
- New Jersey appeal
- Kenya question
- $2 million
- Media pressure
- Natural-born citizen
- Obama eligibility: NJ ALJ makes new law
- Obama eligibility: NJ ALJ ducks issues
- Obama eligibility witnesses: Clinton campaign
- Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey
- Obama: who is he?
- Obama birth certificate details
- Obama birth certificate petition
- Obama eligibility battle in Arizona legislature
- Obama birth certificate still suspect
- Obama born in Kenya?
- Presidential succession crisis
- Does anybody really know what time it is?
- Obama birth certificate investigation
- Obama birth certificate fraud analysis
- Obama birth certificate fraud
- Natural born citizen: what that means
- Obama eligibility: reactions to ruling
- Obama eligibility: flawed ruling
- Obama eligibility challenges multiply
- Obama eligibility challenges explode
- Obama eligibility challenges go forward
- Obama birth certificate does not satisfy
- Obama releases official-looking birth certificate
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378, 1936488299″ /]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
- Christianity Today
- Constitution 101
- Creation Corner
- Entertainment Today
- First Amendment
- Foundation of our Nation
- Guest Columns
- Human Interest
- Ignite the Pulpit
- Let's Talk
- Money matters
- Racial Issues
- Tea Party
- Trump elevator pitch
- World news
Executive5 days ago
Biden administration: just say anything!
News5 days ago
Macron criticized for removing expensive watch during pensions debate
Creation Corner5 days ago
Oumuamua – object of speculation
Executive2 days ago
DeSantis losing key support
Executive4 days ago
Trump prosecution disappointment
News5 days ago
China, US Navy spar over guided-missile destroyer in South China Sea
Executive5 days ago
Ron DeSantis’ donors and allies question if he’s ready for 2024
Money matters5 days ago
Nearly $100 billion in deposits pulled from banks; officials call system ‘sound and resilient’
Ok, 2 things:
1. $100 says this doesn’t happen. Payable to the charity of my choice.
2. Seeing as Obama has got no chance of winning in that most racist of states anyway, what does it matter if he’s on the ballot or not?
Do you really think that it would stop with Arizona?
Yes, because it’s not even going to start with Arizona.
Come on, put your money up.
I would be guilty of fraud against you if I did that.
I grow weary of the “holding back,” over Obama’s deceptions and unconstitutional non natural born citizen status not in keeping with the US Constitution’s requirements to be legitimate president. Here is an example, and here is, what clearly needs to be done to move this eligibility “thing” far more, forward:
….He carefully clarified that Sheriff Arpaio has shown only that he had “probable cause” to suspect forgery in the case of the Internet birth certificate image. He suggested that Sheriff Arpaio should ask the Maricopa County attorney to prosecute……
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel
More birther delusions. I’m starting to worry about just how much you’ll crash when Obama is re-elected later in the year.
I notice you missed out the other part of Ken Bennett’s letter. The full passage is “With all due respect, the [Arpaio] investigation has not proven anything other than raised probable cause that the birth certificate posted on the White House website ‘may be’ a forgery. The next lawful step would be for the sheriff’s office to turn their findings over to the county attorney for prosecution,” he continued. “Evidence would be brought on both sides and a judge should issue a decision.”
In other words, Arpaio should stop holding press conferences, man up, and put his facts where his mouth is. We all know that’s not going to happen though.
The other important part is that all Hawaii is required to do is provide verification. They don’t have to provide a certificate or anything else. In other words, someone will simply write back saying “Yup, he was born here. Kind regards.”
Now I’m no prophet, but I will predict that you won’t be happy with that.
Except that he then said, “Whether that happens or not, if Hawaii cannot or will not [come across], I will not put [Barack Obama’s] name on the ballot.”
Don’t play coy, Terry. Again, let’s have the full quote: “Whether or not that happens, if Hawaii can’t or won’t provide verification of the president’s birth certificate, I will not put his name on the ballot”
As I said, all he’s going to get back is a “Yes”. That’s pretty much all they’re allowed to do by law. The relevant law, in case you’re interested, is here. There are 13 categories of people allowed to get a copy of the certificate, and “wanting to appease some wingnuts with a conspiracy theory fixation” isn’t one of them.
Bennett knows this, which is why he specifically talked about “verification”. His request would fall under one of the five classes of people allowed to ask for such verification, listed under section (g), probably (3).
That’s all he’s asked for, it’s all Hawaii is required to provide and it’s all you’re gonna get.
I could have saved myself some work – it turns out my point has already been made in greater detail here.
Your source dares say that the Arizona Secretary of State lacks the discretion to put Obama’s name on the ballot? What authority does he cite for that?
I think it’s you who needs to show whence a state official gets the right to remove a properly nominated candidate for federal office from the ballot.
Read the Constitution. Read the “time, place and manner” clause in Article I, about the election of Senators and Representatives. And read Article II, Section 1: “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct,…“
Right. Article I is to do with Congress so is totally irrelevant in a discussion about the Presidency. The section of Article II you mention is about appointing electors. Neither section has anything to do with removing someone from a ballot.
Your SoS is asking Hawaii if Obama was born there. That’s fine, but once the reply of “Yes” is returned, that’s an end to it. I have no idea why you continue to pretend otherwise.
Well, you asked who had the upper hand when it came to listing someone on a ballot. And I just told you: the Constitution gives that authority to the States.
What do you think the voters really decide on Election Day? Not who is going to be President. Instead, they decide which slate of elector-candidates will be appointed as Presidential Electors. The Electors actually elect the President the next month.
And you know what else? If any Party ever nominates two men from the same State, then in that State they have to nominate someone else.
The only Federal question on the choosing of Presidential Electors is that sitting Senators and Representatives are not eligible to that office, and Electors must vote for at least one candidate for President or Vice-President who isn’t in the same State as themselves.
I don’t know what controlled or uncontrolled substance you might, or might not, be using. But your notions of Federal power in Presidential elections are as arrogant as they are wrong.
It’s astonishing how someone who claims to support the US Constitution has no idea what it means.
There isn’t anything in the Constitution that talks about the Secretary of State removing people from a ballot. Your bluster about electors is utterly meaningless. The only thing the Constitution requires is that the candidate is a natural born citizen (which Obama is, despite your complaints), that he’s 35 years of age or over, and that he’s been resident in the USA for at least 14 years. (I think we can ignore the Grandfather clause at this point). The 22nd amendment means that Obama can’t be elected more than twice, which isn’t a problem since after November he’ll have been elected exactly two times.
So, I ask again. What part of the Constitution gives Arizona’s Secretary of State the right to remove candidates (or electors who will vote… etc etc) from the ballot given that the candidate satisfies every Constitutional requirement?
You can witter on about States’ Rights as much as you like, but States aren’t allowed to add additional requirements for the Presidency. That’s the end of the argument.
You know even less about the Constitution than you pretend.
What part of “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors…” don’t you understand?
A State, and only a State, runs elections in this country. That also includes elections of Presidential Electors. If it pleases the senior election officer of a State (and that is what a Secretary of State in a State is) to declare that a given candidate for President is less than qualified, then no one in any other State can do anything about it.
What do you propose that Mr. Obama do? Sue the State, in the name of the United States? He might have personal standing as a candidate, but the United States would have no standing to sue a State for not putting his name on a ballot.
And of course you keep putting forth the flawed and incomplete definition of the phrase natural born citizen.
Let’s play your game for a moment. In what sense is “leglislature” equal to “Secretary of State”?
The Secretary of State takes his or her job description from the Legislature.
The Legislature passes the laws that set up the procedure and the authority for the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State is also a creature of the Governor, who usually must “take care that State law be faithfully executed.”
Faithful execution would surely include making sure that no person, except a natural born citizen, appear on primary or other ballot for President or Vice-President.
As rpeh says, all Hawaii is obligated to do is certify that Obama was born there and when. No state has the right to set the burden of proof another state must satisfy where state-governed records are concerned That’s their sovereign right. They are not obligated to produce any original documents at the whim of another state.
Just another example of how the importance of “states rights” depends on one’s agenda.
Then I guess this will turn into “Hawaii can’t or won’t prove it,” won’t it?
“Then I guess this will turn into “Hawaii can’t or won’t prove it,” won’t it?”
No, I would expect this to turn into a case of “Hawaii will offer the attestation that it is supposed to under the law”, which the other states must accept unless an actual case is presented and won in court that proves fraud by the state of Hawaii beyond a reasonable doubt.
This will be followed by “Forget the law – that’s not good enough because we birthers don’t accept anything but our foregone conclusion”.
And that will be followed by 4 1/2 more years of this nonsense. Look at the bright side, though – you’d probably would draw more traffic and revenue to this site attacking Obama than defending Romney for the next four years, so there’s that at least.
Well, let’s see what Hawaii does. Last I heard, Governor Abercrombie said that he couldn’t even find the birth certificate. We never saw a blessed thing from Hawaii, except the Big Stall.
And as for what’s the bigger traffic draw: well, Rush Limbaugh did allow that the election of Bill Clinton gave him more material to work with, so your theory is possible. The big problem I would have with that is that the whole Internet, electric grid, and all of law and order would collapse in the meantime, and then we’d find ourselves dodging those 450 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition. On the other hand, once we prevail on the merits, we get a total Mulligan on the past 3 1/2 years. The prospect, with apologies to William S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan, is Elysian.
So what? Even if they unconstitutionally denied his appearance on the ballot, it doesn’t matter. Arizona was never going to Obama anyway. This whole conspiracy is only of interest to people who would never vote for him in the first place. He’s still going to be elected.
Unconstitutionally denied Obama’s appearance on the ballot? I asked one other commenter, and now I’ll ask you: by what authority do you say that the Constitution demands that Arizona put him on the ballot anyway? This is a new legal theory, and I’m sure that the counsel for Messrs. Purpura and Moran will want the benefit of your Law Review analysis.
“I would be guilty of fraud against you if I did that.”
That’s a very strange claim to make. Fraud requires (among other things) that you make a statement that is (a) false and known by you to be false and (b) relied upon by the other party.
At a minimum, then, you’re claiming to have said something that you know to be false. Hardly the type of admission you’d except to see made so casually.
Moreover, It’s hard to see how JT could claim to rely on something you’ve said when the whole idea of a bet is that the two parties disagree.
Anyway, I’d love to hear why you think making a bet with JT would expose you to a claim of fraud.
Fraud in this case would be taking a sucker’s bet.
The anti-birther crowd’s cat calls of ridicule are getting old.
Question: FOX Owner – Will mortician material Murdoch allow FOX to report?
FOX Network’s Obama Sin of Omission
link to moralmatters.org
link to nydailynews.com
Hawaii verifies President Obama’s birth records to Arizona’s election chief.
Countdown to brand new anti-Obama conspiracy rant in 3… 2…