Saturday, November 22, 2008

Andy Martin's Obama Birth Certificate Suit Dismissed

According to the, Andy Martin's suit filed in Hawaii to obtain a copy Of Barack Obama's birth certificate has been dismissed.

Judge Bert Ayabe upheld arguments from Gov. Linda Lingle's administration that Martin - a political opponent of Obama - had no standing under state law to obtain a copy of the document.

The decision, issued late Wednesday, first denied Martin's "emergency motion" for production of the birth certificate.

Martin "does not have a direct and tangible interest in the vital statistic records being sought, namely the birth certificate of President Obama," Ayabe wrote.

Ayabe wrote that Martin also failed to demonstrate that "irreparable harm will occur if the records are not provided to the plaintiff."

And Martin provided "insufficient evidence to indicate that the public interest supports" release of the record, Ayabe ruled.

"There is a reasonable belief that the public would rather preserve confidentiality of vital health records," the judge wrote.

After denying the emergency motion, Ayabe then granted a motion filed by the state attorney general's office for dismissal of the suit.

He cited Martin's "lack of standing" and also ruled that Martin never legally served Lingle and state Health Department director Dr. Chiyome Fukino with a copy of the legal complaint.

Fukino has said that her office has been barraged by requests for copies of the birth certificate, driven in part by Internet assertions that Obama was not born in Honolulu or the United States and is not eligible to serve as president.

Before the election, Fukino issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics had personally examined the birth certificate and found it to be valid.

(Note folks that NO ONE says WHERE Obama was born, just that he had a valid COLB)

What Happens If Obama Is Found Inelligible ?

I found this post on what would happen if Obama was found inelligible to be President by the Supreme Court :

1. IF BEFORE the Electoral College meets, McCain's electors from all states would be seated (since Obama would not have been qualified) and the vote would be 538-0 (Article II, Section I, Paragraph 3). This because Obama would not have been qualified in the first place. Biden would be VP since the 12th Amendment provides for the separate election of POTUS and the VP. Biden would be eligible and his electors would elect him. Therefore a McCain-Biden term.

2. IF AFTER the Electoral College meets and certifies him, but BEFORE inauguration, the 20th Amendment provides that, if before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, the President-Elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-Elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified (McCain). The same scenario as in (2), above, would then likely apply.

3. IF AFTER the inauguration, the 25th Amendment would apply and Biden would be President and choose his VP (Senate confirmation) . However, McCain might and would be able to sue=based on the DNC fraud and demand scenario provided in (2) above, be applied. Or barring that, a new election.

4. Obama must be forcibly removed from the office and placed behind bars, especially since he was well aware of his fraud when the questions arose back before the DNC primary considering all his attempts to prevent all this information coming out in the Federal Courts. He can face a litany of punishments from jail to death in the extreme case according to the US Constitution. Anything he may have done in office would be null and void, if anyone dies under his RULE as a usurper of the Presidency, then death awaits him. All those involved with his usurpation of the office will also be in BIG DOO DOO with him. Can you say Iron bar hote.

5. Of Course, the SCOTUS can decide to avoid (1), (2) and (3), above and declare a fraudulent election and order a new election with verified candidates. This would implement Continuity Of Government Laws allowing Bush to remain POTUS until after the election. They could also require no new laws to be passed. Whatever happens the DNC Party would not be trusted for generations to come for their knowing attempt to usurp the Presidency, and may as a party become disbanded.

Whatever the outcome, be prepared, we may be witness to an unprecedented event in our nations history. GOD bless America and pray for your country, it could be a bumpy ride !

Friday, November 21, 2008

Kenyan Ambassador to US Admits Obama Born in Kenya ?

When WRIF "Mike In The Morning" Mike Clark (Michigan Radio Talk Show) Co-Host asked if there was going to be a marker where Barack Obama was born in Kenya, the Kenya Ambassador Ogego said his birthplace in Kenya "is already an attraction."

Next question to Ambassador Ogego was: Will they put up a marker at Obama's birthplace there? Ogego affirmed: "it's already well known!"

His Excellency Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the United States admitted in this radio interview that Barack Obama was born in Kenya!

LISTEN HERE: See minute: 12:39 on

Contact Mike Clark, WRIF Michigan Radio Talk Show Host:

Is VA Court Dismisses Obama Suit Story A Hoax ?

Another story that has unfolded and been brought to my attention folks. Apparently some person only known as "Wild Bill" had claimed to have filed a law suit in the state of Virginia challenging Obama's eligibility to be President.

Great News
written by Wild Bill, October 22, 2008

The Virginia lawsuit (actually a Petition for Writ of Mandamus) was filed today. Ironically, we almost missed filing and serving due to the thousands of people downtown today to see Obama speak. In even better news, the Honorable Walter W. Stout III, the chief judge, granted our motion for an emergency hearing and set a briefing schedule. We were required to serve the Board of Elections a copy of the schedule today (which we did). We must file our brief and all supporting evidence on Friday. The Board of Elections has until the 28th to file a response. We may file a reply on the 29th and the hearing will be held on the 30th at 1:30p.m.

We did send copies of the suit and orders to the local media, but unlike some people, we are more interested in pursuing the legal battle, not whoring ourselves out to the media. For that same reason we are not setting up a website or soliciting donations.

We will let you know how things progress.

On November 3, this post appeared in Free Republic:

Virginia State Court Dismisses Action Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President ^ | Nov. 3 | WildBill

Posted on Monday, November 03, 2008 2:20:35 PM by Sibre Fan

The decision was handed down today - it is a long and well-reasoned analysis.


Today's decision is not the result of a conspiracy, nor is it the result of a biased or unprincipled judge. I have made a good living working in out nations courts and have the utmost respect for them. I would hope all patriotic Americans would feel the same way and avoid making unfounded scurrilous remarks about the judge or the judicial system.


Now, the decision.

There are two parts - first the response on the State's argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president, second the issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama's citizenship.

[Part 1: State's argument that the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president]

With respect to the first part, the judge noted that in a presidential election, unlike any other election, the electorate votes for a slate of electors, not directly for the presidential candidates. The judge noted that there is no question that all of the proposed VA electors are qualified to hold that position (a position we never contested). The judge recognized the problem with this is that perhaps there is no entity that is responsible for vetting the presidential candidates. Some on this site have argued that the DNC is responsible for vetting their candidates. There is no legal support for that argument. The judge held that the Constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate are to be determined solely by the congress in session when the electoral votes are cast. The court cited Federal legislation further details the process for counting electoral votes in Congress. 3 U.S.C. 15. Section 15, which directs that Congress shall be in session on the appropriate day to count the electoral votes, with the President of the Senate presiding. It directs that designated individuals shall open, count and record the electoral votes, and then present the results to the President of the Senate, who shall then "announce the state of the vote." The statute provides a mechanism for objections then to be registered and resolved:

"[e]very objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made . . . shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision."

Thus the court denied the motion for a writ of mandamaus and dismissed the petition.

As I mentioned earlier, this was the argument that I think the State had the best chance on and it strikes me as correct. Much as the membership of the Senate is controlled by the senate (see, e.g. the senator Stevens discussion), the constitution places the power to determine presidential eligibility on the congress.

Based on this, our real battle should be to contact our representatives and senators and make certain that an objection is brought at the time of the counting of the electoral votes. Remember, this will be the new congress, so wait until Wednesday when you know who your new representatives and senators are.

The Court could have ended there, but it went beyond this initial holding and addressed our other arguments (this is not uncommon - just as lawyers often make alternate arguments, courts regularly provide alternate holdings in case one is rejected).

[Part 2: issues we raised regarding Mr. Obama's citizenship]

The Court made the following findings:
1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found "wholly unpersuasive" any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii's health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy - and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the "vault" copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. "There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID." The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the "place of birth" line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:.....

is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult.

When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:

"British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth." In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama's UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963. However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen.

The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won't bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama's citizenship "wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue" and further classifies it as "conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on."

Sounds and looks all ncie and legal like right ? The problem is that NO ONE seems to know anything about this case, the courts or the media !

America Wants to Know! had this posted on their site:

Wild Bill files suit in Virginia


This case is kind of funny. To begin with I can't find out WHO this Wild Bill is. Hard to find any information on this on the internet. I keep finding the same two letters and nobody to vouch for them. The funny thing is that this is the only case that seems to get answered in addition to being thrown out. There's some pretty compelling arguements, but like I said, nobody is coming out and endorsing it, that I can find.

October 22, Wild Bill files case
Wild Bill, apparently wanting to remain anonymous, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Letter from wild bill found at
November 3, Virginia State Court throws case out
State argues declares the Board of Elections is not responsible for vetting candidates for president
State answer issues raise regarding Obama's citizenship
Letter from Wild Bill found all over the internet

Since I've posted this, I'm still getting feedback that this case didn't really happen. I can't verify any of this. I don't have time. If anybody can get me some conclusive information on this case, that would be good.

November 15, 2008 - I recieved an email today from attorney that is really in the know and she also has not been able to discover any concrete information on this case. There is alot of speculation that none of this actually happened.

I recieved the following email regarding this case:



I too believe that this case is a "fake case" based on the following:

1. I conducted multiple searches for the case at - Using a variety of names, including Board of Elections, Elections, Election, etc. — and no case was reported.

2. I contacted Judge Stout’s Office (the judge in the case, per Wild Bill. (Info at The clerk there could find no record of the case in the docket.

3. I contacted two local Richmond newspapers, with all the info available. There was no subsequent report on the case. Given that at least local news has reported on all similar cases, I find it very hard to believe that local Richmond news would not report on such a substantial opinion.

Citizen Wells had this posted on their site:

Another Obama Camp scam?

When I first read about the Virginia lawsuit claiming Obama is ineligible and the subsequent ruling by the judge, it did not smell right. I have reread the exerpts placed on the internet and after much thought and deciding that I had to read the Petition and the judges ruling, I searched for a record of the filing and hearing on the official Virginia Courts website. I did extensive searching by names and dates and found nothing. After much searching, I called the clerk of court's office. I was told that several people had called inquiring about the case and they could find no record of any case.

So this has raised more questions than answers. It appears this supposed case may have been a hoax to get people to steer away from this issue. I'll do some more digging folks and let you know what I find out .

Thursday, November 20, 2008

SCOTUS To Review Obama Citizenship Case

WorldNet Daily is reporting that a case challenging Obama's citizenship has been scheduled for a conference at the US Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court's docket says: "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."

If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.

According to America's Right blogger Jeff Schreiber, a development in a second case presented to the Supreme Court on the same issue.

The Federal Election Commission now has waived its right to respond to a complaint brought by attorney Philip Berg.

"There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg's petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg's lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response," the blogger speculated.

"Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents," he added.

"If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I'm surprised," Berg told America's Right. "I'm surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn't seem to exist.

"However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion," he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General's office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

But he noted that "questions surrounding this aspect of Obama's candidacy are seemingly beginning to see the light of day."

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Al Qaeda's al-Zawahri Racially Slurs Obama, Powell and Rice

The main stream news media wants you to believe that Al Qaeda verbally attacked Obama with a racial slur recently but in reality folks it was directed at others as well (The MSNM does its best to make Obama a victim):

Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader used a racial epithet to insult Barack Obama in a message posted Wednesday, describing the president-elect in demeaning terms that imply he does the bidding of whites.

While it's true that Ayman al-Zawahri posted a message on Al Qaeda sites directing a racial slur at Obama, it was also directed at Powell and Condi Rice as well:

In al-Qaida's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect- along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice -"house negroes."

Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as "house negroes."

Al-Zawahri said Obama's election has not changed American policies, then he says:

Obama's victory showed Americans acknowledged that President George W. Bush's policies were a failure and that the result was an "admission of defeat in Iraq." (Bwhahahahaha, this guy is on crack)

Huh ? Am I hearing this correctly ? Obama's election didn't CHANGE American policies, oh no, what ever will the "O" bots do. They wanted so much to see CHANGE. The terrorist sympathizing Left will have to deal with the same ol, same ol from Al Qaeda. They don't get it folks, Al Qaeda hates America, no matter who is leading the country ! Wake up Moonbats !

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Is The Main Stream News Media Finally Reporting Obama Birth Certificate Story ?

In a story released on their website entitled: Former Obama opponent now suing to prove President-elect's citizenship,, it now appears that the main stream news media may be taking on this story:

SACRAMENTO, Calif.- A former opponent of Barack Obama's has come back to haunt him over questions regarding Obama's citizenship.

According to a press release from the American Independent Party, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and other members of the party have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to President-elect Barack Obama until documentary evidence is provided to prove Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States.

Some conservatives have questioned Obama's citizenship in recent months. Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

Keyes also ran against Obama as a Republican for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004. Obama won that election to serve his first and only term in the U.S. Senate.

A little late in the game folks but it appears anyway that this story is gaining traction. We can all hope that if Mr. Obama is a natural born US Citizen that he just proves it by releasing his Vault Copy of his birth certificate.

Proof: Obama Voters Did Not Have A Clue

On November 4th, twelve Obama voters were interviewed by John Ziegler after they voted to learn how the news media affected their knowledge during the campaign.

Watch John Ziegler's appearance on Fox News, Hannity & Comes show.

Because obviously interviewing a relative handful of Obama voters, while interesting, is hardly scientific proof of anything, we also commissioned a Zogby telephone poll which asked the very same questions (as well as a few others) with similarly amazing results.

Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

Monday, November 17, 2008

" Iraq War is Over. We Won"

The news comes from Michael Yon who called Glen Reynolds to give him the news you probably won't hear from the mainstream media antime soon:

Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad, and reports that things are much better than he had expected, and he had expected things to be good.

"There's nothing going on. I'm with the 10th Mountain Division, and about half of the guys I'm with haven't fired their weapons on this tour and they've been here eight months. And the place we're at, South Baghdad, used to be one of the worst places in Iraq. And now there's nothing going on. I've been walking my feet off and haven't seen anything. I've been asking Iraqis, ‘do you think the violence will kick up again,' but even the Iraqi journalists are sounding optimistic now and they're usually dour." There's a little bit of violence here and there, but nothing that's a threat to the general situation. Plus, not only the Iraqi Army, but even the National Police are well thought of by the populace. Training from U.S. troops has paid off, he says, in building a rapport."

Michael also says that Obama can pull some troops out of Iraq and send them into Afghanistan without any negative repercussions, thanks to President Bush's tenacity and our troops' skill and unshakable commitment. The media will do what they can to give all the credit to Obama even though he and the rest of the Democrats minus a small minority fought tooth and nail to undermine President Bush, our troops, and their efforts.

So what's the big picture? We have a democratically elected government in the Middle East, making it one less country under the control of tyrannical dictators, which is important for not only our national security but the rest of the world's too.

The Confederate Yankee Writes This:

Our soldiers in Iraq have played many roles and worn many hats, but it seems that their primary role now is that of a peacekeeper, providing support to a government and a people that seem increasingly capable of handling their own affairs.

We can declare victory because President Bush wouldn’t quit on his troops. If Barack Obama had his way, a triumphant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would have had a chance to have made the same claim over the Caliphate of Iraq.

Up North Mommy Adds:

Indeed. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, however, met his 79 virgins in June of 2006 thanks to President Bush and the US and Allied Forces.

Amen to that, Folks, Amen to that !